Skip to main content

Full text of "Maryland Historical Magazine Spring 1967"

See other formats



IN 1907 

when we reached the age of 28 

The B&O Locust Point pier under construction in the Patapsco River 
collapsed, killing seven persons and causing damage estimated at $400,000. 
—April 27. 

The University of Maryland began a three-day observation of the 100th 
anniversary of its founding. — May 30. 

In 1965 

... we occupied our new office and warehouse espe- 
cially constructed to utilize the most modern equip- 
ment and techniques. 

MOVING — We are Maryland's largest agent for Allied Van Lines, 
with the experienced personnel and facilities for any moving job — 
local or long distance. Our expert packers prepare anything from 
household furnishings to precious art treasures for safe handling in 
transport or in storage, using customized containers and new, clean 
packing material. 

STORAGE — Our especially designed one-level storage warehouse 
reduces handling to a minimum. All goods are packed into room- 
size portable containers, sealed against light, dust or moisture and 
stored in the sprinkler-protected, fireproof building that permits 
lowest possible insurance rate. 

Our motto is: "WE CARE" 

Agent for Allied Van Lines, the World's Largest Moving 



3006 Druid Park Drive, Baltimore, Md. 21215 
Phone 664-1664 
Salisbury, Md. Office & Warehouse: 815 Benny St. 

Phone: PI 9-7117 
Serving Maryland and the Nation Since 1879 



in denominations of $12,000 and up, earning the 
maximum rate permitted by the Federal Home Loan 


$3,000 minimum, upward, certificates, also earning 
a very high rate. (Additions may be made in multiples 
of $1,000.) 

The more flexible Fraternity Federal Savings passbook 
accounts earn a generous return also, including that 
EXTRA per annum. 

For full particulars, call LE. 9-1313 or HO. 5-5445 



Main Office: Branch: 

764-770 Normandy Shopping Or. 
Washington Blvd. Route 40 West 

Balto., Md. 21203 Ellicott City, Md. 

INSURED to $15,000 by the 
Federal Savings and Loan 
Insurance Corp., GOV'T. Agency 

+ Postage-FREE SAVE-by-MAIL Service— 
CERTIFICATES may be purchased by mail. 

DRIVE-UP Windows at main office— At-the-door 
PARKING LOTS at both offices 

ic Economical SAFE DEPOSIT BOXES at both offices 


A History of the University of Maryland 

By George H. Callcott 

Associate Professor of History at the University 

The first full history of the University since 1907. 

Based on complete access to all University records but not subjected to 
"censorship" or official "approval." 407 pp. plus index and 16 pp. illus- 


the stories of some of the first and finest of American pro- 
fessional schools— Medicine, Law, Divinity, Pharmacy, Den- 
tistry and Nursing; 

the development of the institution at College Park from a 
college for the sons of aristocratic planters, through the 
impact of the Civil War and industrialization, to new ideals 
of democracy, public service and excellence; 

the evolution of student life— from serious scholars hiding 
from hostile mobs, to second-hand Confederate uniforms, to 
raccoon coats, big-time football and today's post-Berkeley 

the spectacular and controversial age of "Curley" Byrd; 
the present drive for quality in the midst of quantity. 

$7.50 plus tax and postage 

201 W. Monument St. • Baltimore, Md. 21201 

Library Closing 

Because construction of the Thomas and Hugg 
Memorial addition to the headquarters of the 
Society is behind schedule, library service will 
continue to be curtailed. Scholars faced with 
publication deadlines will be assisted to the 
fullest extent possible considering that the staff 
is engaged in inventorying the book collection 
and reorganizing the manuscript collection. 

ftp-* im&Si 


Anonymous— For conservation of the Latrobe Papers .... $ 10,000.00 

Francis F. and Rosamond Beirne— For undesignated library 

fund 25.00 

Mr. and Mrs. Marion V. Brewington— Restricted for display 

cases for Maritime Collection 1,000.00 

Frederick W. Brune— For undesignated library fund . . . 1,500.00 

Charles P. Crane— For undesignated library fund .... 250.00 

Jacob and Annita France Foundation— Unrestricted . . . 2,500.00 

Kent Roberts Greenfield— Unrestricted 25.00 

Sarah Lilian Greif— Restricted for purchase of costume 

display case 1,932.65 

Historical Society of Harford County— Restricted for arrange- 
ment of Harford County historical papers .... 100.00 
Norris and Winifred Harris— Contribution toward portrait 

of the late James W. Foster 100.00 

C. A. Porter Hopkins— For undesignated library fund . . 100.00 

Samuel Hopkins— For undesignated library fund .... 35.00 

H. H. Walker Lewis-Unrestricted gift 100.00 

Middendorf Foundation— Unrestricted gift 2,500.00 

National Society Daughters and Founders of Patriots- 
Restricted for restoration of Key Papers 50.00 

John M. Nelson, Jr., Foundation— Unrestricted .... 200.00 
John Gilman D'Arcy Paul— Restricted for arrangement of 

Harford County historical papers 100.00 

Mary Robertson— Restricted for restoration of Clement Hill 

Papers 50.00 

Karl Singewald— Unrestricted bequest (Endowment Fund) . 1,000.00 

A. Russell Slagle-Unrestricted gift 200.00 

Society of the Cincinnati in Maryland— Unrestricted gift . . 200.00 

Julia E. Spilcker— Unrestricted bequest (Endowment Fund) . S.588.03 
Donald Stewart— Restricted for new stand of colors for 

"The Star-Spangled Banner" niche 113.25 

Dr. Jerome P. Webster— Unrestricted gift in memory of 

Mrs. Jerome P. Webster 100.00 

John Campbell White-Restricted for library 1,000.00 

Woman's Eastern Shore Society of Baltimore— Unrestricted 

gift 100.00 

For the gift of objects, books and papers, far too numerous to list 
here, which have been received in the century and more since it 
was founded, the Society records this expression of its lasting 
gratitude. These contributions from countless members and friends 
have made the Society a major storehouse of state and national 

Officers and Members of Committees of the 


elected at the Annual Meeting, February 13, 1967 

President Chairman of the Council 

Col. William Baxter George L. Radcliffe 

Vice-Presidents Corresponding Secretary 
J. Gilman D'Arcy Paul William B. Marye 

Bryden Bordley Hyde Recording Secretary 

Abbott L. Penniman, Jr. H. H. Walker Lewis 

Samuel Hopkins 

Trustees of the Athenaeum 
Charles L. Marburg, Chairman 
Howard Baetjer Edgar W. Garbisch 

Hugo Dalsheimer A. A. Houghton, Jr. 

Lucius R. White, Jr, 

Committee on the Gallery 
Francis H. Jencks, Chairman 
Mrs. Michael A. Abrams Mrs. H. Irvine Keyser, 2nd 

J. R. Herbert Boone R. McGill Mackall 

William V. Elder, III Elisabeth C. G. Packard 

Mrs. Harold Duane Jacobs Richard H. Randall, Jr. 

Mrs. George Weems Williams 

Committee on the Library 
Dr. Huntington Williams, Chairman 
Thomas F. Cadwalader Edward G. Howard 

Paul S. Clarkson Lester S. Levy 

Curtis Carroll Davis Thomas G. Machen 

Harry S. Dickey G. Ross Veazey 

Arthur J. Gutman John Campbell White 

Committee on Finance 
Robert G. Merrick, Chairman 
Benjamin H. Griswold, III John E. Motz 

J. William Middendorf, Jr. Thomas S. Nichols 

Truman T. Semans 

Committee on Publications 
Charles A. Barker, Chairman 
Miss Rikida M. Dorsey Aubrey C. Land 

Hamilton Owens 

Committee on Membership 
Charles P. Crane, Chairman 
George W. Constable John P. Paca, Jr. 

James W. McElroy George M. Radcliffe 

Robert Lee Randolph 

Committee on Addresses 
Howard Baetjer, II, Chairman 
Richard F. Cleveland Pleasonton L. Conquest, III 

Robert L. Weinberg 

Committee on War Records 
J. Rieman McIntosh, Chairman 
Gary Black Maj. Gen. William C. Purnell 

Roger Brooke Hopkins Lt. Gen. Milton A. Reckord 

Committee on Education 
Thomas G. Pullen, Jr., Chairman 
Harry Bard The Rt. Rev. Noble C. Powell 

Frederick W. Brune A. Russell Slagle 

Committee on Relations with Other Societies 
Mrs. Francis F. Beirne, Chairman 
Royden A. Blunt Mrs. William S. Hilles 

Alexander S. Cochran Charles McC. Mathias, Jr. 

Committee on the Maritime Collection 
Richard H. Randall, Sr., Chairman 
Marion V. Brewington Robert E. Michel 

S. Vannort Chapman G. H. Pouder 

Charles P. Crane J. Dawson Reeder 

R. Hammond Gibson Charles E. Scarlett, Jr. 

William E. Hill Joseph L. Stanton 

William B. Matthews, Jr. William C. Steuart 

August Mencken Frederick L. Wehr 

H. Graham Wood 

The Building Committee 
Abbott L. Penniman, Jr., Chairman 
Martin E. Boessel, Jr. Mrs. W. Wallace Symington, Jr. 

J. Gilman D'Arcy Paul Lucius R. White, Jr. 

Richard Stephens Mrs. George Weems Williams 

Women's Committee 
Mrs. W. Wallace Symington, Jr., Chairman 
Mrs. William G. Baker Miss Louisa M. Gary 

Mrs. Kenneth A. Bourne Mrs. W. T. Dixon Gibbs, Jr. 

Mrs. Walter B. Buck Miss Jean H. Gilmor 

Mrs. Richard F. Cleveland Mrs. Bryden Bordley Hyde 

Mrs. Edward K. Dunn Miss Pechin Ingle 

Mrs. Swepson Earle Mrs. Nicholas B. Merryman of J 

Mrs. J. William Middendorf, Jr. Mrs. Richard G. Riggs 

Mrs. B. Frank Newcomer Mrs. J. Nicholas Shriver, Jr. 

Mrs. William H. Pitcher Mrs. Paul P. Swett, Jr. 

Mrs. Edwin C. Pond Miss Mary Gordon Thom 

Mrs. J. Creighton Riepe Mrs. Charles A. Webb 

Mrs. George W. Williams 

Special Projects Committee 
C. A. Porter Hopkins, Chairman 
Thomas M. Anderson, Jr. John W. Noble, Jr. 

Hugh Benet, Jr. Orlando V. Ridout, IV 

Walter W. Brewster Arthur W. Sherwood 

George D. Hubbard W. Cameron Slack 

W. Boulton Kelly, Jr. Joseph D. Tydings 

William Cushing Whitridge 

Seminar— Maryland History Committee 
Kent Roberts Greenfield, Chairman 
Miss Rhoda M. Dorsey Wilbur H. Hunter, Jr. 

Jack Philip Greene Aubrey C. Land 

C. A. Porter Hopkins Morris L. Radoff 

Harold R. Manakee, Director 

Honorary Members 
The Earl of Avon Dr. Lawrence C. Wroth 


Vol. 62, No. 1 March, 1967 



Political Parties in Revolutionary Maryland 

1780-1787 Jackson T. Main 1 

Public Education in Maryland in the Progressive Era 

Raymond S. Sweeney 28 

The McNeill Rangers and the Capture of Generals 

Crook and Kelley . . . John W. Bailey, Jr. 47 

Portraits by Sir Joshua Reynolds Return to 

Tulip Hill /. Rainey Kelly 64 

Sidelights 68 

A Speculative Footnote to XYZ Peter P. Hill 

Reviews of Recent Books 73 

Wright, ed.. The Prose Works of William Byrd of Westover, by 
John Carter Matthews 

Nye, Here Come The Rebels!, by Richard R. Duncan 

Bamby, The Prisoners of Algiers: An Account of the Forgotten 
American-Algerian War. 1785-1797, by L. D. Geller 

Forman, Early Nantucket and Its Whaling Houses, by R. Ham- 
mond Gibson 

Lee, The Lower Cape Fear in Colonial Days, by William H. 
Wroten, Jr. 

Whitehill, Garrett and Garrett, The Arts in Early American 
History: Needs and Opportunities for Study, by Anna Wells 

Hoggan, The Myth of the 'New History': The Techniques and 
Tactics of the New Mythologists of American History, by 
William H. Wroten, Jr. 

Brown, Sword and Firearm Collection of The Society of the 

Cincinnati, by Hugh Benet, Jr. 
The Sounds of History, Record 3: 1789-1829, The Growing Years, 

by Katharine L. Brown 

Notes and Queries 86 

Contributors 88 

Annual Report 89 

Annual Subscription to the Magazine, $4.00. Each issue $1.00. The Magazine 
assumes no responsibility for statements or opinions expressed in its pages. 

Richard Walsh, Editor 

Published quarterly by the Maryland Historical Society, 201 W. Monument Street, 
Baltimore 1, Md. Second-Class postage paid at Baltimore, Md. 


Studies in Maryland History 

His Lordship's Patronage: Offices of Profit in Colonial Maryland. 

By Donnell M. Owings. 1953 $ 6.00 

Baltimore as Seen by Visitors, 1783-1860. By Raphael Semmes. 

Illustrated. 1953 $ 4.00 

William Buckland, 1733-1774. By Rosamond R. Beime and John 

H. Scarff. 1958 $ 7.50 

Texts and References for School Use 

The War of 1812 On The Chesapeake Bay. Illustrated paperback. 

By Gilbert Byron, 1964 $ 2.00 

My Maryland. By Kaessmann, Manakee and Wheeler. History of 

Maryland, Revised edition $ 4.50 

The Star-Spangled Banner. Illustrated booklet. Description of the 

writing of our National Anthem by Francis Scott Key . . . $ SO 

Indians of Early Maryland. By Harold R. Manakee. 1959 ... $ 1.80 

Maryland in the Civil War. By Harold R. Manakee. 1961 . . $ 4.50 

Early Explorations of the Chesapeake Bay. By Gilbert Byron, 1960 $ 1.00 

Wheeler Leaflets on Maryland History. (24 titles) . . . each 5 .10 


A History of the University of Maryland. By George H. Callcott. 

Illustrated. 1966 $ 7.50 

Quakers in the Founding of Anne Arundel County, Maryland. 

By J. Reaney Kelly. Illustrated. 1963 $ 5.50 

The Maryland Press, 1777-1790. By Joseph T. Wheeler. 1938 . $ 4.00 

History of Queen Anne's County. By Frederic Emory. 1950 . . $ 7.50 
From Mill Wheel to Plowshare By Julia A. Drake and J. R. 

Orndorff. Orndorff Genealogy. Illustrated. 1938 J 5.00 

Chesapeake Bay Sailing Craft. By M. V. Brewington. Illustrated 

pamphlet $ .50 

Semmes and Kindred Families. By Harry Wright Newman. 1956 $10.00 
The Hollyday and Related Families of the Eastern Shore of Mary- 
land. By James Bordley, Jr., M.D. 1962 $10.00 

The Regimental Colors of the 175th Infantry (Fifth Maryland). 

By H. R. Manakee and Col. Roger S. White'ford. 1959 ... $ 2.00 

World War II 

Maryland in World War II: Vol. I, Military Participation, 1950; 

Vol. II, Industry and Agriculture, 1951; Vol. IV, Gold Star 

Honor Roll, 1956. H. R. Manakee, comp each $ 355 

History of the 110th Field Artillery, with Sketches of Related Units. 

By Col. John P. Cooper, Jr. Illustrated. 1953 $ 5.00 

Maryland in World War U— Register of Service Personnel, 

5 vols each $20.00 

201 W. Mounment Street Postage and tax, 

Baltimore, Maryland 21201 if applicable, extra. 



A Quarterly 

Volume 62 MARCH, 1967 Number 1 


By Jackson T. Main 

A well-known revolutionary leader observed, "There is no 
government in which parties do not sometimes arise, and 
party as naturally creates factions, as summer produces heat, 
or winter cold." 1 James Madison in 1788? No, Samuel 
Chase in 1781. Obviously Chase was referring not to a pres- 
ent-day party, with its formal organization, but to a group 
of people taking sides. A party in this sense of the word— 
which is used here— was familiar to Maryland politicians. 
During the colonial period, the "court" or proprietary" 
party, with its stronghold on the eastern shore, had con- 
tended with the "country" or "popular" party. That align- 

* A version o£ this paper was read by the author at the 1966 Meeting of the 
Southern Historical Association at Memphis, Tennessee. 
1 The Matyland Gazette, June 7, 1781. 




ment, however, disappeared before 1776. By 1781, when 
Chase wrote, new parties had formed. 

Parties were not mentioned in Maryland's constitution 
of 1776. Instead, its architects were concerned with the tra- 
ditional theories concerning a balanced government. A 
Senate with high property qualifications protected the state's 
elite. Chase, who was one of the principal framers, was com- 
plimented by another founding father, Charles Carroll of 
Carrollton, for having "opposed popular prejudices" and 
possessing "courage enough to encounter, and defeat the 
opposition of those, who wished our constitution to be more 
democratical." 2 The democratic element was supplied by the 
House of Delegates. The property qualification of £,500 cur- 
rent money of course eliminated most Marylanders, but it 
admitted anyone who owned, for example, a few hundred 
acres. Every county was allotted four delegates, while the 
towns of Annapolis and Baltimore chose two apiece. 

During the years with which we are concerned the Delegates 
seem to have reflected public opinion reasonably well. They 
did not comprise a cross-section of the people, but most of the 
state's major economic and social groups were represented. A 
majority of Marylanders earned their living from agriculture, 
and so did about seventy percent of the delegates. 8 These 
farmers can be divided into three groups. Not far from half 
were large landowners, with 1,000 acres or more. About a 

'Ibid., Aug. 23, 1781. 

' The following table omits those representatives who attended only briefly. 

% °f % of 

number known number known 

merchants & traders 


















other non-farm 






farmers & planters 







Biographical data have been drawn from many sources. Eleanor Phillips 
Passano's invaluable An Index of the Source Records of Maryland (Baltimore, 
1940) contained references to local histories and genealogies. There is an index 
to the Maryland Historical Magazine in the Maryland Historical Society, which 
also contains manuscript biographical material and important tax lists (Scharf 
papers). Many obscure men can be traced through probate records and other 
sources in the Hall of Records, Annapolis. 


fourth were substantial farmers owning between 500 and 1,000 
acres, and the rest were plain "yeoman" farmers with less 
than 500 acres. The delegates who were not primarily farmers 
may also be divided into three groups. One-third were engaged 
in trade, one-third were lawyers, and the other third were doc- 
tors, officials, millers, and miscellaneous enterprisers. 

The state's various economic classes, except for the poor, 
were also present. Any dividing line between classes is arti- 
ficial, but since some standard is needed for analysis, the legis- 
lators may be separated into four categories. Those with 
£-5,000 worth of property are here considered wealthy. About 
one-fourth of the delegates qualify; these were the great plant- 
ers or the most prosperous merchants and lawyers. A slightly 
larger proportion were well-to-do, owning estates of £.2,000. 
Therefore about sixty percent of the delegates belonged to 
what may be called the upper class of Maryland, a class which 
comprised roughly ten percent of the white population. A 
third group of representatives, numbering about one-fifth of 
the total, may be called "substantial," with property worth 
£1,000— the requirement, incidentally, for a Senator. Finally 
another fifth of the delegates owned "moderate" estates of less 
than £ 1,000.* Obviously the House was not a truly representa- 
tive sample of the voters, to say nothing of the people, but the 
ideas of most white Marylanders, provided they had some prop- 
erty, found expression. Delegates came from every level of 
wealth above the lower strata, and from all of the principal 
occupations. If parties grow out of such economic differences 
they had fertile ground in the Maryland House of Delegates. 

How can these parties— these groups of men taking sides- 
be discovered, defined, and described? Did they, indeed, exist 
at all? Letters and controversial pieces in the newspapers iden- 
tify a few issues and reveal the names of a few major protag- 
onists together with the arguments with which they justified 
their positions; but we learn little concerning the attitudes 
of the great majority of delegates or of the reasons why they 

* A wealthy planter, according to the definition in the text, would character- 
istically own about 2,000 acres and 50 slaves. The well-to-do individual would 
own about 1,000 acres and a score of slaves. For discussion of these 
categories see Jackson Turner Main, The Social Structure of Revolutionary 
America (Princeton, 1965). 


acted as they did. Fortunately, Maryland's House had tradi- 
tionally called and recorded the votes on most important ques- 
tions, and each session produced anywhere from a couple of 
dozen to over fifty close divisions of the House. About three 
hundred and fifty such votes are available to us, furnishing 
ample materials for a study of political alignments. 8 The first 
step, then, in any analysis of Maryland's political parties, is to 
determine whether the delegates voted at random, or whether 
there were persistent divisions within the legislature. If the for- 
mer was true, then of course we must acknowledge that parties 
or factions did not exist, that politics was atomized and can be 
understood only through study of the individuals who com- 
prised the political world. If however we do find consistent 
patterns in voting behavior, if we discover delegates voting 
together year after year, if we have such parties at Chase re- 
ferred to, then we must seek the reasons for their existence. 

The procedure, in the present case, was quite simple. Every 
roll call vote was recorded except when there was only a small 
minority (for we were interested in issues upon which there 
was conflict, not harmony). Then for each session the presence 
of a pattern was tested. And patterns did emerge. 6 During 
the session of 1784/85 all but three of the thirty-six roll call 
votes correlated highly with one another. That session may 
serve as the extreme example of an alignment, the existence 
of which is apparent year after year. 

The votes show that the legislature of 1784/85 contained 
two major sides, or parties: let us call them A and B. Side A 
consisted of 22 individuals, side B of 28, while 12 men were 
neutral, and half-a-dozen cast too few votes for classification. 
Two members of side B cast each of their thirty-three votes 
in a way typical of their group, while two members of the 
opposite side cast thirty of their thirty-one with the same con- 
sistency. As a rule the delegates did not follow quite so strictly 

B The journals of the legislature were published, and are available either on 
microcard as part of the "Early American Imprints" series (see listings in 
Charles Evans' American Bibliography) or on microfilm through the Library of 
Congress's "early state records" project. 

"The following pages duplicate, first, one of the four sheets on which were 
recorded the votes taken during the 1784/5 session (compare the record of 
James Steel of Dorchester with that of Archibald Job just below), and second 
a preliminary analysis of one party's votes. 


their "party lines," but voted by some such margin as 19-4 or 
22-8 in favor of the positions taken by their side. Those who 
did not support one or the other party by a margin of at least 
two to one are considered neutral. When we eliminate these, 
the remaining members voted with a consistency of about six 
to one— a display of regularity which would do credit to a 
modern-day legislature with its formal party organizations. 7 

The same kind of alignment persisted year after year. There 
were always two major groups, and often the same men com- 
posed them. During the entire period about 62 percent of the 
votes were significant in revealing these divisions. Of all the 
delegates for the whole period 52 men belonged to group A, 
70 to group B, and 40 were neutral. For example David 
M'Mechen of Baltimore city and Lawrence O'Neale of Mont- 
gomery County served throughout the period beginning in 1780. 
They voted on the same side 49 times and on opposite sides 
233 times. So also Nicholas Carroll and John Stevenson agreed 
18 times and disagreed on 87 questions over a period of four 
years. On significant questions, the first pair divided 98 to 18 
and the second, 66 to 12. 8 

Maryland's legislature, then, did indeed contain parties in 
Chase's sense. 

What was the nature of this alignment? Three lines of in- 
vestigation can be followed: we may examine the constituencies 
which the men represented, the characteristics of the delegates 
themselves, and the nature of the issues which divided them. 

First, the men clearly voted according to their geographical 
origin. Representatives from the eastern shore voted on side 

7 The regularity of voting behavior varied from session to session, being highest 
in 1784/85 and lowest the previous year, when only half of the votes showed a 
clear pattern. The definition of what constitutes a pattern is necessarily some- 
what subjective, but in general if the difference between the two sides was on the 
order of about two to one the vote was considered significant. Usually the 
contrast was much sharper. During the whole session of 1780/81, 25 out of the 37 
divisions of the house were significant, the B group, which consisted of 26 
persons, casting 365 votes on their own side, 97 on the other, while group A 
(14 individuals) voted the other way, 244-57. Thus the ratio of regularity was 
about four to one. Naturally if all votes, whether significant or not, are 
included, the ratio was much less, standing at about three to one. 

8 Before these figures were obtained, an effort was made to minimize the 
distortions caused by a series of votes on a single issue. In the 1785/86 legisla- 
ture, for example, three votes were taken on December 31 concerning a petition 
by A. C. Hanson. The A group almost unanimously opposed Hanson's request, 
while the B group supported him. These three votes were counted as one. 



B by a margin of about four to one. Joining them were dele- 
gates from the lower Chesapeake and Potomac River areas 
and from the two towns. In contrast, men from counties of 
the northern Chesapeake, the upper Potomac, and in general 
the "west" voted overwhelmingly with side A (see map). 9 
Counties which lay on the border between these two major areas 
were divided politically. The southeastern counties had been 
settled first, formed the heart of the old plantation country, 
and still contained most of Maryland's slaves. All depended 
immediately upon tobacco exports, and their close connection 
with commerce is also indicated by their political alliance 
with Baltimore and Annapolis. Although most of the eligible 
voters in these counties must have been farmers of modest 
property, the influence of the long-established planter class 
remained great, while men in trade and the professions were 
important economically and socially. In contrast the counties 
of the northern Chesapeake and upper Potomac were newer, 
contained less wealth, and had fewer slaves and a more equal 
distribution of property. They contained fewer towns, and 
were based economically upon a diversified agriculture. Clearly 
these regional variations helped to polarize the delegates. 

A second method of studying Maryland's parties is to deter- 
mine whether the delegates composing the two sides differed 
in their economic, social, cultural, or other characteristics. 
And indeed major contrasts appear, especially in the occupa- 
tions and wealth of the protagonists (see Table I) . 

Among the 162 men whose votes are here discussed, not 
over three-tenths had an occupation other than farming. This 
minority, however, greatly increased its political influence be- 
cause it was concentrated almost exclusively in party B. Among 
the thirty-eight merchants, lawyers, and doctors who voted dur- 
ing those years, only three supported party A. On the other 

* Counties here designated as "eastern shore" included Kent, Queen Anne's, 
Caroline, Talbot, Dorchester, Somerset, and Worcester. The lower or southern 
Chesapeake and Potomac River counties were Calvert, St. Mary's, and Charles. 
Counties of the northern Chesapeake were Cecil, Harford, Baltimore, and Anne 
Arundel, while those comprising the "west" were Prince George's, Montgomery, 
Frederick, and Washington. Prince George's county of course might be con- 
sidered part of the lower Potomac area, and it was in fact transitional politically, 
voting equally on both sides, so that it could be indifferently assigned to either. 
The same is true of Kent and Queen Anne's counties. 

Table I 

Geographical and Economic Composition of the Parties* 

Type B neutrals % T YP e A 














sistent % 









sistent % 























1 9 









dor tors 


















othpr non-farm 






I i 


1U 1/2 







la rtrp 1 a n o 1 own pre 

icll gc JlallUUWUCl o 




\l A 













larfre fa rmers 















itii nit i o 







i?/ 2 


















W Cai 111 y 


















i a t f 1 1 - 1 r\ -fi r\ 



1 1 
1 1 





T: 1 


4D/ 2 







t— 1 


oUUaLdU Lid. JL 











1 7 





m oo* pi* n tp 





111/ 2 










Uilix 11 \J W XX 









eastern shore 








37i/ 2 







southern Ches. 















8c Potomac 


the towns 















northern Ches. 






























* Percentages are of those known, and are rounded. 


hand thirty belonged to side B; indeed they constituted half 
of its adherents including many of those who voted most con- 

In contrast, party A was made up almost entirely of farmers. 
The yeomen and lesser planters in particular preferred that side 
by a margin of nearly two to one, furnishing over half of its 
membership. The great landowners, however, were distrib- 
uted equally between the two parties. Perhaps some were led 
toward side A because they shared its agrarian bias, while others 
thought of themselves as entrepreneurs, whose interests linked 
them with the merchants and professional men of group B. 

The explanation for this difference in occupation might 
seem at first sight to lie in the sectional nature of the two par- 
ties. Since the stronghold of the A group was more purely 
rural while that of party B was more commercial in nature, 
the former might be expected to limit its choice to farmers 
while the latter would logically select some business and pro- 
fessional men. But in that case, type B delegates elected in 
counties which normally chose men of type A ought to have 
been farmers like the members of group A. Instead, out of 
eleven such men two or perhaps three were merchants, three 
were lawyers, and two were doctors. Similarly, type A dele- 
gates chosen from counties which generally supported side B 
were not business and professional men, but farmers with one 
exception. The evidence therefore is conclusive that group A 
was distinctively agricultural whereas party B was strongly 
influenced by business and professional men. 

The contrast by economic class is statistically less significant 
then that by occupation and may be due less to differences 
in wealth as such than to the fact that farming was less profit- 
able than trade or the law. Still, the tendency of small farmers 
to support party A whereas large landowners were divided 
suggests that class did have some influence. Nearly twice as 
many wealthy men belonged to group B as to group A, al- 
though the former, being larger, contained only a slightly 
larger percentage. Delegates who were well-to-do supported 
side B by a margin of more than two to one. Those with sub- 
stantial properties were equally divided, but among the men 
worth less than £1,000, the overwhelming majority adhered 


to party A. These last two groups, the smaller property own- 
ers among the delegates, made up more than half the member- 
ship of party A whereas they furnished about three-tenths that 
of type B. Therefore the less wealth a delegate had, the greater 
the probability of finding him voting on side A. 10 

These characteristics assumed their extreme form at oppo- 
site ends of the political spectrum. The most consistent mem- 
bers of the two groups revealed most decisively the essence of 
their types. On side B a baker's dozen averaged 66 votes for 
and 9 against the positions taken by their group, while four- 
teen delegates supported party A by an average of 63 to 6. 
Although one leading member of side A was a wealthy iron 
manufacturer and great planter, and a reliable adherent of 
side B was nothing more than a substantial farmer, these men 
taken as a whole were the two types incarnate. All fourteen 
leaders of group A came from the northern Chesapeake and 
upper Potomac; only one leader of group B did so. The latter 
included five men of wealth, six who were well-to-do, and 
none of moderate property, whereas the A group contained 
only one man who was rich and two who were well-to-do, but 
there were six with moderate estates. No small farmer was 
among the thirteen most consistent members of party B, but 
the A archetypes included at least six; while on the other hand 
six or seven of the B group had a non-farm occupation where- 
as all but two or three of the A group depended upon agricul- 
ture. Thus these men, more than one-fifth of the whole num- 
ber, vividly display the qualities of their kind. 11 

Besides differences based on section, occupation, and wealth, 
a few other attributes of the delegates are evident. Members 
of Maryland's prominent old families were inclined to sup- 
port group B. On the other hand men new to the state, or of 
unknown parentage, tended toward group A. Self-made men, 

10 Party affiliation of delegates, by economic rank: 

% supporting B 

% neutral 

% supporting A 

















u The same sharp contrast could be extended through an even greater number 
of men, who supported their type by a majority of four to one. 


who rose from humble backgrounds to affluence, almost always 
voted on side B, but since most of the wealthy men were on 
that side the point may be inconsequential. Delegates of wider 
experience preferred party B. College men, and men who 
seem to have intellectual interests usually favored that side, as 
did representatives who had fought in the continental army, 
or who had held federal offices. On the other hand militia offi- 
cers and soldiers divided equally. Delegates of type A often 
held local offices but seldom state or federal posts, and in gen- 
eral their experience seldom extended beyond the state's bor- 
ders. Finally, those who voted with side A almost always be- 
came Antifederalists whereas members of group B almost 
always favored ratification of the federal constitution in 1788, 
Samuel Chase being one of the rare exceptions. Among the 
archetypes on either extreme, six of the A group became Anti- 
federal, two Federal, while of the B group seven became Fed- 
eral and one Antifederal. 12 Thus geographic origin, occu- 
pation, economic status, previous experience, and political con- 
viction appear to be among the fundamental factors which 
distinguished the two parties. 

A third method of analyzing the nature of the alignment 
is through a study of the issues which divided the delegates, 
especially by focusing upon those votes which found the two 
groups most nearly unanimous. There were 130 test votes 
which particularly demonstrate the solidarity of type A dele- 
gates. 13 Few of these concerned such social and cultural mat- 
ters as slavery, religion, or education. Questions of that sort 
did arise, but not often, and the division upon them usually 
followed no pattern at all or one which differed from the dom- 
inant alignment. Rather, the significant votes were economic 
and political. Most important were those concerned with mon- 
etary policy, including the getting and spending of money, 
prices, and the currency supply. 

"Put differently, among the delegates who became Antifederalists, 82% were 
on side A, 18% were on side B, and none were neutral; while of those who 
favored ratification 54% belonged to type B, 27% to the neutral group, and 
19% to type A. 

" The term "votes" here must be understood to include groups of votes. 
Delegates of party A were unanimous on 24 votes and on 38 only one man 
voted in opposition. 


The largest number of motions which polarized the dele- 
gates dealt with government spending. Type A representatives 
were determined to limit expenditures. Perhaps because they or 
their constituents saw less hard cash than did their opponents, 
they tried to reduce the fees collected by certain officials and 
the salaries paid to the Governor, the Judges, the Chancellor, 
clerks of the legislature, the Intendant, and the members of 
Congress, among others, 14 although they were not reluctant 
to grant money to themselves. 18 On one occasion they voted 
against the entire civil list. 18 At various times they refused to 
allow the Governor money for moving expenses and furnish- 
ing a house, 17 rejected a special grant to an army doctor for 
services rendered, 18 denied a plea by residents of Baltimore 
that they be reimbursed for quartering troops, 19 and vetoed 
appropriations for a road connecting Baltimore with the Sus- 
quehanna and for a lighthouse. 20 They would not establish 
a permanent fund for the salaries of professors at Washington 
College. 21 They thought A. C. Hanson asked too much when 
he requested £,750 for collecting and digesting the laws of the 
state, 22 and they denied a petition of some citizens that they 
be reimbursed for tobacco burned by the enemy. 23 Similarly 
they tried to limit the number of officeholders, especially dis- 
liking the office of Intendant. 24 

Consistent with their frugality, members of A group tried 
to reduce taxes, or perhaps more accurately to shift the tax 
burden onto others. 25 They were especially anxious to mini- 
mize the tax on land and agricultural products, or on commonly 

"May 3, Dec. 19, 1780, Jan. 29, 1781, Jan. 20, 22, Nov. 12, 13, 20, 1782, 
Nov. 21, Dec. 23, 25, 1783, Dec. 2, 1784, Jan. 6, 7, Nov. 28, Dec. 9, 1785, Jan. 23, 
Feb. 21, 1786, Jan. 9, 10, May 23, 26, Nov. 28, Dec. 5, 1787. 

"For example, June 7, 1782. 

"Jan. 22, 1782. 

" Nov. 27, 1783. 

"Jan. 14, 1785. 

» Dec. 5, 1786. 

80 Jan. 18, Nov. 30, 1785. 

a Nov. 30, Dec. 3, 1784. 

"Dec. 31, 1785. 

"June 4, 1782. See also Jan. 17, Dec. 13, 1787. 
"Jan. 17, 22, May 30, 1782, Jan. 30, Nov. 30, 1783. 

25 April 25, 1780, Dec. 20, 1781, Nov. 21, 1782, Jan 6, 1785. But see an ex- 
ception, March 1, 1786. 



used articles such as salt, 26 while perfectly willing to assess 
stock in trade or commerce. 27 They supported high prices for 
farm products except for tobacco. 28 

Monetary policy has a dull sound, but some of the most ex- 
citing battles of the period were fought over it. Maryland, 
like other states, was confronted with a surplus of paper money 
during the war and then a serious shortage after the peace. 
The type A delegates preferred to maintain a large supply of 
paper currency which would be legal tender, and which cred- 
itors could be compelled to accept. 29 They also demonstrated 
a pro-debtor bias in favoring passage of a bill making possible 
the payment of debts by installments. 30 They were anti-specu- 
lator, and unsympathetic with the owners of the state's public 
securities. For example they twice voted against accepting bills 
of credit at par with specie in payment for confiscated British 
property. 31 On other occasions, they tried to defeat a motion 
that men owing money to the state could pay in paper, 32 and 
they succeeded in blocking a bill to protect the rights of the 
state's creditors. 33 

Other attitudes of the type A group are similarly revealed 
by occasional test votes. An anti-urban bias is sometimes per- 
ceptible, especially in matters of taxation and expenditure. 34 
These delegates were unsympathetic with nonjurors (those who 
refused to take an oath of allegiance), 35 and were unfriendly 
to Loyaltists. 36 A certain narrowness of view is suggested by 

28 See the attempt to have land assessed at a low rate, Dec. 3, 1783, and 
Jan. 5, 1785; to eliminate a duty on home-made spirits distilled from fruit, 
April 26, 1780; and to strike out import duties on salt, flour, wheat, and to- 
bacco, Jan. 12-13, 1785, May 26, 1787. 

27 Dec. 23, 1782. Their attitude toward import and export duties seems to have 
depended upon what was being taxed. They approved of a general 5% im- 
post (Dec. 22, 1782), but later when they failed to eliminate the tariff on cer- 
tain articles they voted against a similar law (Jan. 22, 1785). They voted 
against a duty on tobacco exported (May 7, 1787). They tried to prevent an 
import duty on bar iron but did not oppose the final bill (Jan. 8, 1787). 

a8 Dec. 20, 1780, Jan. 8, 29, 1781, Dec. 18, 1782. 

" May 4, Nov. SO, 1780, Dec. 10, 1785, Dec. 12, 15, 1786. 

»°Mav 15-22. 1787. 

"Dec. 4, 1781, Dec. 25, 1783. 

"May 24, 1787. 

"Dec. 14, 1787. On another important issue, they voted against a com- 
mittee report which favored the holders of continental bills and which called 
for taxes to pay the public debt April 25, 1780. 

"For example, Jan. 7, 1781. 

» Bel 6, 178°i", Nov. 27, 1783. 


their defeat of a strong measure, during the dark spring of 
1780, which would have given the Governor and Council pow- 
er to raise and supply troops, and by their refusal in 1782 to 
allow the state's militia to be out of the state for as long as 
three months. 37 No doubt the soldiers approved of this, as they 
surely did of group A's support of a measure reducing the 
price of vacant land, if bought by soldiers, to 3 /2 per acre. 38 

Few crucial votes on continental matters were taken, but 
these few show that type A representatives were less inclined 
than their opponents to support Congress financially or to 
grant Congress power. 39 In the spring of 1787 they voted 16-1 
to postpone naming delegates to the Federal Convention until 
their constituents had been consulted, and the next fall they 
voted to postpone until April the election of delegates to a 
ratifying convention. 40 As already remarked, most of these men 
whose opinions are known became Antifederal in 1787 as did 
three of their strongholds among the counties (Harford, Balti- 
more, and Anne Arundel) . Later the Republicans were to 
draw strength from some of the same men and counties. 41 

The adherents of party B supported with the greatest una- 
nimity the opposite policies. They almost always voted in 
favor of whatever appropriation was being debated, pressing 
for higher salaries, fees, and per diem allowances. 42 They were 
willing to spend money for the Governor's house, for roads, 
for A. C. Hanson and his digest of laws, and for the support 
of officials generally. They unanimously rejected an attempt 
to tax office holders. 43 Ordinarily they were intent upon in- 

"May 3, 1780, Jan. 4, 1782. 
"Jan. 7, 1782. 

"April 25, 1780, March 2, 1786. 
"Jan. 15, Nov. 26, 1787. 

41 A few other questions which caused the group A men to coalesce may be 
noted. They refused to exempt the Governor and other officials from military 
duty (Dec. 4, 23, 1782) . They unanimously opposed an effort to revise the con- 
stitution so as to modify a loyalty oath (May 27, 1783). They voted three times 
against financial support to Washington College on the eastern shore (Nov. 
30, Dec. 3, 30, 1784), and a bill encouraging a college on the western shore 
met with no greater success (Nov. 18, 22, 1785). Newspapers contained some 
attacks on the colleges as aristocratic institutions, and in fact party A favored 
19-3 a bill to establish the University of Maryland instead of the colleges 
(Dec. 10, 1785). 

42 In addition to the votes cited above, see May 3, 1780, Jan. 20, 1782, Nov. 
21, 1783, Jan. 5, 1785, May 26, 1786. 
48 Dec. 21, 1781. 


creasing taxes to meet the high cost of government, including 
payment of the public debt. 44 They defended payment of taxes 
in specie and pressed for prompt collections, voting a penalty 
on collectors who refused to act. 45 On the other hand the non- 
farm origin of many may have influenced their almost unani- 
mous rejection of a tax on artisans' tools. 46 They also success- 
fully pushed through an act to encourage the manufacture of 
nails, which their adversaries tried to prevent. 47 The presence 
of more slaves in their stronghold is shown by their attempt 
to lower the assessed valuation of slaves for tax purposes. 48 
They were somewhat more favorably disposed toward specu- 
lators, permitting them to use state paper money for taxes and 
public debts, 49 and they were more friendly toward non- 
jurors. 60 

On one important issue the delegates of group B acted with 
more unity than those of group A. This was a much-disputed 
bill for a general tax to support the Christian religion, which 
was debated during the 1784/85 session and was supported 
by a large majority of the type B delegates. 51 Party A might 
have been defending the taxpayers, or perhaps the dissenting 
sects were stronger in the counties dominated by group A whereas 
the stronghold of group B was heavily Anglican. The religious 
affiliations of the delegates themselves did not differ significantly. 

On another equally important issue the B group was divided 
whereas the A group was more nearly united. This was the 
paper money controversy, which reached an acute state in 

41 As above, and see Dec. 23, 1783, Jan. 15, 1785. They voted for duties on 
home-made spirits, salt, tobacco, and iron, for higher taxes on land, for an 
export tax on vessels and a tax on interest bearing bonds, but opposed one 
on trade. Feb. 4, 1786, Dec. 24, 1782. 

"Dec. 12, 1782. The A group opposed this, 5-10. 

"Dec. 9, 1782. 

"Dec. 23, 1787. 

" Feb. 3, 1786. 

"March 2, 1786, May 24, 1787. 

60 May 3, 1780, Jan. 15, 1785. On such issues as the college question and 
the revision of the constitution they adopted the converse of the position 
taken by group A. 

"Jan. 8-14, 1785. When considerable opposition appeared to the tax— for 
the A group voted against it by a three-to-one margin— an address was circu- 
lated among the people. This step was approved by group B, 16-2, and op- 
posed by group A, 6-11. In the next session the two parties continued to 


1785-86. Paper money was favored by most of the type A dele- 
gates, and they were joined by about a third of the type B 
representatives, notably Samuel Chase. Chase was ordinarily, 
like Carroll in the Senate, a steady and influential member of 
party B. On this issue, however, he broke with his party, as 
he was presently to do on the federal constitution. The de- 
fection of men such as Chase made possible the victory of the 
paper money forces. 52 

The information conveyed by these votes confirms and ex- 
tends what has already been discovered about the party align- 
ment. Economic issues in particular seem to have been impor- 
tant. One side clearly adopted an agrarian policy and tended 
to be somewhat local in its interests; the other favored the 

"Several votes on the paper money question were taken. On Dec. 13, 1785, 
the house defeated an attempt to postpone the measure, and on Dec. 22 the 
act passed. The next year another bill was introduced and again two votes 
were recorded, consisting first of an effort to limit the amount which would 
be issued and finally on the bill's passage. The alignment of the two parties 
on these votes was as follows, the consistent pro-paper money pattern being 
against— for— against— for: 

A group 

B group 








to postpone 




























Obviously group A was the pro-paper money group but B, though anti-paper 
by a margin of about two to one, was more evenly divided. The explanation 
lies in the defection of men such as Chase. Chase's political career is a 
curious one, for he shifts— depending upon one's definition of terms— from 
radical in pre-war days to conservative during the period after 1776 to Anti- 
federalist in 1787-88 to Federalist ever after. Chase's record as a strong party B 
man (150-30) makes clear that his shift on the paper money and ratification 
issues were aberrations, and his later Federalism was a reversion to type. Chase 
was joined by a number of other delegates six of whom, in fact, were among 
the otherwise more consistent leaders. Chase and David McMechen— another 
city lawyer and future Antifederalist— excepted, these defectors were farmers 
rather than townsmen, well-to-do rather than wealthy, from the eastern shore, 
who on this issue joined the agrarian party to which they were closely re- 
lated by economic interest. At least four of these men had bought confiscated 
property. On the other side the major defectors from group A were two 
wealthy great planters from Anne Arundel county. In a way the history of 
this controversy is as informative about the nature of political alignments as 
is the analysis of other votes upon which the party differences were more 



business and professional men and the larger property hold- 
ers, and took a broader view. 53 

The conclusions to be derived from this material apply, im- 
mediately, to the particular history of Maryland and also, by 
implication, to the history of the period as a whole. On the par- 
ticular level we perceive, first, that the roughly 18,000 indi- 
vidual votes which we are considering, make a pattern. This 
fact is of basic importance, for if the delegates simply voted at 
random, individually, as mavericks, then no general explanation 
of political behavior could be sought, and our attention would 
be restricted to the motives of each considered separately— to 
Chase and Carroll. Next, this pattern consists not of a large 
number of separate parts, but of two: the members of the House 
formed not a series of factions each of which had its peculiar 
qualities, but two big parties. Indeed, three-fourths of the dele- 
gates can be assigned clearly and positively to one side or the 
other. Moreover this pattern is valid for most of the votes, not 
just a few— specifically for five out of eight. And even more; 
identification within these groups was not occasional or sporadic 
but frequent and persistent, for the delegates who belonged to 
them voted about 80 percent of the time with their party, and 
this performance was repeated year after year. Such a clear 
and continuing pattern must be due to general principles of 
political behavior which are valid for most of the delegates 
most of the time. The pattern cannot be sought in the pres- 
sures arising from party organizations, for none existed. We 
must look beyond political institutions. 

The search for principles has taken three forms, all of which 
have led to positive results and which confirm one another. 
First, the pattern is clearly sectional. One side, which has 

■* Certain other issues, important at the time or in retrospect, but which 
did not so clearly divide the two groups, deserve some comment. A bill re- 
pealing the act which had prohibited delegates to Congress engaging in trade 
was opposed by a majority of group A, favored by group B. Several bills 
friendly to debtors, which stirred up much debate, divided the representatives 
in no set fashion. A bill granting a theatrical company permission to perform 
in Annapolis passed with the support of most party B delegates over the oppo- 
sition of party A. A motion rejecting petitions for the abolition of slavery 
was favored by both sides, the division following no evident pattern. A state- 
ment explicitly declaring the 1783 treaty with England to be the supreme 
law of the land, which in some other states served to intensify party divisions, 
did not do so in Maryland. 


been denominated B, drew almost its entire strength from the 
eastern shore and the counties of the lower Chesapeake-Po- 
tomac. These were the oldest, most thickly settled parts of the 
state, were or had been the wealthiest, still contained practi- 
cally all of the slaves, and were characterized by tobacco plan- 
tations. The representatives of Annapolis and Baltimore town 
strongly supported that party. Side A, in contrast, was based 
primarily on the counties of the northern Chesapeake Bay and 
the western part of the state. These sections were more re- 
cently settled, had accumulated less wealth and far fewer slaves, 
contained principally men engaged in diversified, often self- 
sufficient agriculture, and had fewer great plantations. Towns 
were rare, and when a townsman was chosen he was apt to vote 
with party B. The need for detailed research into local his- 
tory is obvious, but we may postulate the existence of impor- 
tant social and economic contrasts, and at the same time we 
recall that this sectional antagonism had previously existed for 
many years and was to endure for many more. 

When we turn from the delegates' constituencies to the men 
themselves, we find further reasons for our pattern. The most 
striking fact is that the overwhelming majority of type A dele- 
gates were farmers, most of whom owned less than 1,000 acres. 
In contrast half of their opponents, including most of the con- 
sistent leaders, were men in trade or the professions. The 
orientation of group A was entirely rural, that of B, partly 
urban. Indeed if the large landowners are viewed as basically 
entrepreneurs rather than farmers, party B was composed al- 
most exclusively of business and professional men. In any case 
this orientation toward the wide world of commerce, on the 
one hand, and toward the more limited economy of agricul- 
ture, on the other, corresponds with the regional character- 
istics of the alignment. In the same way the greater wealth of 
side B is related both to the fact that the southeastern coun- 
ties were richer than the relatively new section to the north- 
west, and to the higher incomes which merchants, lawyers, 
and great planters earned. Although both parties contained 
rich men, 70 percent of the type B delegates were at least 
well-to-do, whereas more than half of party A's members 
owned less property. 



Other differences between the delegates may be related to 
these same geographical and economic contrasts. Side B con- 
tained most of the men of prominent old families of good edu- 
cation, and broad political, military, and intellectual experi- 
ence: they were more apt to "think continentally." Few such 
supported party A. Its leaders were men of limited education 
whose experience was restricted and local. 

A final type of evidence which indicates the nature of the 
alignment is drawn from the issues which created the parties. 
Most of the votes were on political or economic questions, and 
the position taken by the two groups shows a consistent atti- 
tude. The measures favored by group A reveal a familiar 
agrarian bias. Above all they tried to keep down expenses and 
to reduce taxes. They were unsympathetic with the needs of 
townsmen and the desires of speculators, but favored their own 
objectives such as higher prices for farm products and a good 
supply of paper money. They were willing to support Congress 
but opposed a strong central government. They were, obvi- 
ously, potential Jeffersonians. The delegates of group B of 
course followed an opposite policy, oriented on the whole to- 
ward the needs of the business or commercial interests, and 
anticipating the Federalism of the next decade. 64 

These conclusions have certain broader implications. They 
can be formulated into a set of general hypotheses which apply, 
of course, only to Maryland at that particular period, but may 
prove to have a wider significance. They are far from novel, 
but a restatement of them seems demanded by the evidence. 

One: the legislators did not vote at random but in accord- 
ance with certain principles. 

Two: upon economic and political issues, the legislators 
tended to vote according to their economic and political in- 
terests, or those of their constituents. They did not invariably 
do so. One-fourth of the delegates belonged to neither side, and 

"The counties which became Federalist strongholds in the 1790's (follow- 
ing Dauer's analysis) had produced 44 B delegates, 13 A delegates, while those 
which became Republican centers had chosen A representatives by a margin 
of 25-9. Divided counties had been divided earlier. The only reversal of im- 
portance occurred in the upper Potomac counties which belonged to group 
A (13 to 4, with 8 neutral) but leaned toward Federalism later. 

Party Voting in Maryland 


few delegates were entirely consistent, so that factors such as 
ideology or personal influences played an important role. 

Three: therefore even in the absence of formal party or- 
ganizations, the legislators formed parties, or sides. Which is 
to say, then, that in Maryland parties developed naturally and 
inevitably rather than adventitiously. 

Finally, while the influence of personalities and ideology 
was important, the delegates acted within a larger and more 
decisive framework. The explanation of political alignments 
in Maryland is to be found primarily by analyzing the under- 
lying economic and social environment, with particular atten- 
tion to the needs and objectives of geographical areas, of 
classes, and of social and occupational groups. The clash of 
personalities— of Chase and Carroll— is fascinating; but let us 
not forget that Chase and Carroll were usually on the same 



The following twenty-seven men cast at least thirty votes, and 
supported their group by a margin of at least 6:1. Sources for the 
information are given only if they are not indicated in footnote 3. 


Nicholas Carroll, nee Maccubin, of Anne Arundel (77-3) (1723- 
1783) , of an old and fairly prominent family, related by marriage 
to Samuel Chase, was a merchant in Anne Arundel County who 
married the only daughter of Dr. Charles Carroll. She inherited 
her father's large property and her sons, Nicholas and James, in- 
herited not only this estate but the fortune of her brother Charles 
Carroll, Barrister. Nicholas and James thereupon took the name 
Carroll in 1783. Nicholas (Maccubin) Carroll married Ann Jenings 
(daughter of Attorney General Thomas Jenings) . He was an 
Annapolis lawyer, attended the Inns of Court, and was chosen 
Delegate for Anne Arundel County in 1780, 1783, and 1784. His 
voting record was the most consistent of any man on either side of 
the fence. He voted for ratification in 1788. 

Peter Chaille, of Worcester (53-5), of a prominent French Hu- 
guenot family, fled to England in 1691. His sons Peter and Moses 


immigrated to Maryland in 1710 and became substantial land- 
owners. The third Peter (1725-1802) held over a thousand acres, 
twenty slaves, and fifty cattle in 1783, his taxable property being 
assessed at £2,221. He was, therefore, a typical well-to-do planter 
of the eastern shore. He was active locally in the revolutionary 
movement, sat in the state's constitutional convention, acquired 
the title of Colonel, served in the House during 1784-1786, and 
voted for ratification in 1788. 

Alexander Frazier, of Calvert (43-7) . Frazier was a large farmer 
whose property of 740 acres and 18 slaves in 1786 may just qualify 
him for the adjective well-to-do. Nothing is known of him beyond 
his public record. Perhaps he was the son of Dr. Alexander Fra- 
zier, of Annapolis, who died before 1746, or of the Reverend Alex- 
ander Frazier, who died in 1760. He himself is not listed in the 
1790 census. 

John Gale, of Somerset (45-7) . Gale sat in the legislature continu- 
ously beginning in 1784. He is not listed in the census of 1790 
and the Somerset tax records have disappeared, so we know little 
about his economic status or indeed about anything else. Evidently 
he was a grandson of John Gale who died in 1775, leaving his 
namesake several hundred acres. He served as Captain in the con- 
tinental army, joining the Society of Cincinnati. Later he became 
a Major, and in 1784 was building two ships, which perhaps quali- 
fies him as a shipbuilder rather than a farmer. He voted for the 
ratification in 1788. 

William Hindman, of Talbot (76-9). Hindman's father Jacob 
was a prominent planter who held over 1,000 acres. William grad- 
uated from the College of Philadelphia and studied law in Lon- 
don. He was active in the early revolutionary movement, became 
Treasurer of the Eastern Shore, and served in Congress, both un- 
der the Articles and the Constitution. He strongly favored ratifi- 
cation in 1788 and supported the Federalists later. By 1790 he 
had acquired 61 slaves. 

Thomas Johnson, of Frederick (55-3) . Johnson was a poor or- 
phan whose father had been a farmer. He studied law, married 
a daughter of Thomas Jenings, and became exceedingly promi- 
nent long before independence, serving as a leader of the country 
party. In 1779 he was elected Governor, and later he was to be- 
come a judge of the United States Supreme Court. He favored 
ratification in 1788, though by 1796 he was supporting Jefferson. 
He has been described as a philosopher, but his philosophical in- 
clinations did not prevent him from acquiring a fortune. 


Philip Key, of St. Mary's (63-10) . The founder of the Key family 
was Philip, an English lawyer who immigrated in 1720, accumu- 
lated a very large estate, and was elevated to the Council. Coun- 
cillor Philip's son Dr. John, who was trained in Edinburgh, died 
when the young Philip was five. The latter was educated in Eng- 
land and practiced law, serving in the House of Delegates in 1773 
and on local radical committees. He married a daughter of the 
Virginia leader Col. Richard Bland. Although he belonged to the 
colony's elite he seems to have been well-to-do rather than wealthy, 
owning 1948 acres and 25 slaves in 1783. He was acting as a fac- 
tor in 1785 (Md. Gazette, May 12, 1785) . His son, Philip Barton 
Key, was a Federalist. 

David McMechen, of Baltimore-town (125-24) . Captain William 
McMechen immigrated before the revolution with his children, 
one of whom was David. The father apparently went west to the 
Ohio River while the son remained behind to become a lawyer in 
Baltimore. He served on the local committee of observation in 
1775 and in the House of Delegates every session during the 1780's. 
Eventually he acquired a large fortune but there is no indication 
of wealth during these earlier years. According to one source he 
was an Antifederalist in 1788. He has been confused with a David 
McMechen of Newark, Delaware. See Maria McMechen Buchanan 
Sullivan, "A Record of the Buchanan and related Families," type- 
script, Maryland Hist. Soc, pp. 88-89. 

Allen Quynn, of Annapolis (172-31). Allen Quynn, like McMe- 
chen, was elected to the House every year during the 1780's, yet 
little is known about him. He reputedly was born in what was 
to become Washington county, in 1727. By 1765 he was a Coroner 
in Anne Arundel County, and later held other judicial offices. 
Above all he represented Annapolis in the legislature every year 
from 1778 until his death in 1803. He seems to have been a mer- 
chant; in any event he was certainly a satisfactory representative 
of the town. 

James Steel, of Dorchester (44-7) . Henry Steel of Cumberland, 
England, moved to Maryland with his tenants before 1750. He 
acquired a very large estate, including about 6500 acres, most of 
which he left to his eldest son James, who became one of the 
wealthiest men of the eastern shore. James seems to have been of 
no consequence, though he was chosen to the House in 1784, 
1786, and 1787. 

John Stewart, of Somerset (32-4). Stewart's ancestry is unknown. 


One of the name was an innkeeper in Dorchester county in 1770, 
but there is no mention of him in Somerset sources. He was a 
Major of the militia in 1776 and became Colonel in 1781. By 1783 
he had £,1340 worth of taxable property including 31 slaves but 
only 150 acres, a ratio which suggests some occupation other than 
farming. He voted for ratification in the 1788 convention. 

Francis Jenkins Henry, of Worcester (30-1) . Robert Jenkins Hen- 
ry, father of the delegate, was the son of a Presbyterian minister 
and a Councillor's daughter, who married exceedingly well, became 
a great landowner with property in three colonies, was chosen 
to the Council, and died in 1764. Francis Jenkins was also a 
wealthy planter with over 3,000 acres on the eastern shore. He 
owned 50 slaves in 1790. His political career was undistinguished. 

Richard Waters, of Somerset (38-2). In 1722 a Richard Waters 
mentioned in his will three sons, William, Richard, and Littleton. 
He owned a sloop, some land, and property in England. Probably 
it was his sons Richard and William who owned 1810 and 790 acres 
respectively in 1774. Our Richard was presumably the son of one 
of these. He served as a Captain in the continental army, after 
which he retired to his 276 acres. The farm was small but valuable, 
with a good brick house on it, and he owned twenty-two slaves, his 
taxable property totalling £1600. Later he was to achieve the 
rank of Colonel and serve as Quartermaster-general for the state 
in 1814. 


James Bond, of Harford (47-9) . The Bond family is a large one 
and there were four James Bonds living in Harford in 1790. One 
of these had eight slaves. One served as a Lieutenant in 1776. Clear- 
ly the delegate, whichever he was, was a small property owner too 
unimportant to earn special mention in the local histories. 

Edward Burgess, of Montgomery (80-5) . The Burgess ancestry 
was prominent and wealthy if one goes back far enough. Col. 
William Burgess was a member of the Virginia Council, and left 
several thousand acres. Capt. Edward Burgess eventually obtained 
most of this and also married well. He had two sons, Samuel and 
John, both of whom must have been wealthy. John had eight sons 
of whom Edward was sixth in line. As a result he was only a sub- 
stantial farmer rather than a great landowner, owning in 1783 
(evidently) about 700 acres and 15 slaves valued, all together, at 
£1484. Another Edward Burgess had a small farm. Burgess sat in 


the house every year but one beginning in 1781 and was almost 
unbelievably consistent in his voting habits. He was otherwise 
undistinguished, unless it is a distinction to have been defeated 
as an Antifederalist candidate for the ratifying convention. 

Edward Cockey, of Baltimore (33-1) . Cockey belonged to a lesser 
branch of a large and distinguished family. His father, Capt. John, 
was a shopkeeper, tanner, and large landowner who left a personal 
estate of £3090 at his death in 1746. The property was divided 
among six sons, and either Edward received some of the poorer 
land or he was not a very good manager, for in 1783 he had only 
200 acres and 4 slaves. The 1790 census lists him with six negroes. 
His local reputation must have been good, for he was a vestryman, 
Colonel of the militia, member of the House for several years, and 
a member of the 1788 convention, where he voted against the 

Benjamin Edwards, of Montgomery (48-7) . Edwards was born in 
Virginia and moved across the Potomac to Georgetown, where he 
engaged in trade, acquiring £124 worth of land and seventeen 
slaves. He crossed party lines to vote for ratification in 1788, later 
served briefly in Congress, and ultimately moved to Kentucky where 
he died in 1829. He is classified here as possessing substantial 
means rather than as well-to-do, since men of large property usually 
acquired more real estate and left a deeper mark. 

Charles Greenbury Griffith, of Montgomery (65-9). C. G. Griffith 
was, like Cockey, a member of a large family. The immigrant, 
William, arrived in 1675 (and incidentally married a daughter 
of John Maccubin, the great-grandfather of Nicholas Carroll) and 
had three sons. One of these was Orlando, who married an heiress 
and was able to furnish good estates to his five surviving sons, in- 
cluding Charles Greenbury. Either he, or someone of the same 
name had £2065 worth of taxable property in 1783, including 
about 900 acres, 38 slaves, and a grist mill. His career was undis- 
tinguished except that he sat for four years in the House, and he 
or a namesake served on the local committee of observation, held 
the title of Colonel, and was chosen to the vestry. 

John Love, of Harford (71-9) . Nothing is known of Love's back- 
ground. During the revolutionary years he became a leader, at- 
tending the provincial Congress, attaining the rank of Lieutenant 
Colonel, acting as justice of the peace, and joining his friend and 
neighbor Ignatius Wheeler in the legislature regularly beginning 
in 1783. He voted against ratification in 1788. His £1295 worth 



of taxable property included ten slaves and 868 acres, placing him 
among the large farmers. 

Jeremiah Magruder, of Prince George's (34-3) . The Magruders 
were in Maryland by 1652. Jeremiah's father, one of the third 
generation, was a substantial farmer. Jeremiah himself owned only 
363 acres in 1772 but he may have inherited more when his father 
died a few years later. By 1790 he owned 36 slaves which suggests 
that he held at least a thousand acres. He was a delegate for two 
years but otherwise was obscure. 

Thomas Ogle, of Frederick (27-4) . The Ogles came from Ger- 
many in the 1660's. Major Joseph, a grandson of the immigrant, 
moved west to Frederick County and had six sons. He was a farmer 
and left a small estate of £354, not including some "desperate" 
debts. Thomas was only seven when his father died, and never 
surpassed him in wealth, dying at the age of 41 when his children 
were still under age. He had a house in Frederick town, which 
suggests that he was an artisan or shopkeeper of some sort, as does 
the long list of inventoried debts which, like those of his father, 
were mostly desperate. Yet he did not own any tools of a trade 
and had the usual possessions of a small farmer, his personal prop- 
erty totalling £183 plus £20 in separate debts. He had 363 acres 
in 1773. Almost nothing else is known about him. 

John Oglevee, of Cecil (54-2). Oglevee's father, also named John, 
was a small farmer who left a personal estate of only £119 in 1744, 
including an indentured servant but no slaves. John Jr. served 
briefly in the House, acquired the title Captain, bought two slaves 
and some books, but remained a farmer, leaving £550 in personal 
property at his death in 1797. 

Lawrence O'Neale, of Montgomery (152-18). O'Neale's father 
William was a planter of Prince George's county probably of lim- 
ited means, who married a tailor's daughter and died in 1759 when 
Lawrence, the eldest son, was just of age. O'Neale's marriage to 
Henrietta Neale allied him to some of Maryland's most prominent 
families. He became sheriff of Frederick county in 1774, and served 
as a delegate every year throughout the 1780's. Presumably he 
retained his office by an exceptionally consistent voting record. He 
was a farmer with about £1,000 worth of taxable property. In 
1788 he stood for election to the ratifying convention as an Anti- 
federalist but was defeated. See the Pennsylvania Genealogical 
Magazine, XIX (1954), 176-177. 


Charles Ridgely, of Baltimore (78-8) . Ridgely's voting record is 
similar to O'Neale's but he was in other respects an opposite type. 
His grandfather, a lawyer, laid the basis for the family fortune, 
which was enormously increased by his father, Col. Charles, a mer- 
chant who acquired over 7,000 acres and a flourishing iron busi- 
ness. Charles the younger began his career as a mariner, becoming 
a Captain in the English trade by 1757. Fifteen years later he 
inherited 2,000 acres and the ironworks. By 1783 he himself owned 
about £9,000 worth of taxable property and his two iron com- 
panies were worth twice as much. He (or perhaps his heir) had 
117 slaves in 1790. Meanwhile he had been a prominent "radical" 
in revolutionary days, served in the legislature annually after 1783, 
and became an Antifederalist. 

John Sellars (Cellars, Sellers), of Washington (66-8). Sellars' 
background is unknown. A Pennsylvania family included some of 
the name, who moved into Virginia, but the Marylander seems to 
be of a different origin. We only know of him that he was on 
the committee of observation in 1775, became a Captain and a jus- 
tice of the peace, served in the house annually beginning in 1783, 
was a defeated Antifederalist candidate in 1788, and died or moved 
away before the census of 1790. 

John Stevenson, of Baltimore (89-7) . Several John Stevensons 
lived in the area. The most prominent, a doctor of Baltimore-town, 
died when our John was still a legislator. The doctor left a nephew, 
John Jr., but our John was never referred to in this way and more- 
over he represented the county, not the town. Probably he was the 
son of Edward (d. 1760), a substantial farmer. If so he was a 
farmer owning four slaves in 1783. Perhaps it was he who died in 
1786 leaving a personal estate of £274 and five sons, including still 
another John. 

Nicholas Swingle (Swingly), of Washington (30-1) . Johan Nich- 
olas Zwingli, a Swiss from Saarbrucken, Germany, immigrated to 
Philadelphia in 1740 with his sons Nicholas, 20, and George, 16. 
Nicholas possessed a single slave in 1790. Presumably he or his 
brother erected "Swingles Mill," which existed in 1795. 

The following lists include those delegates who voted with a 
consistency of at least 4:1, the approximate ratio being given in 
parentheses. Some of them were more consistent than the leaders, 
but cast fewer than thirty votes. 



John Cadwalader (6:1) of Kent, wealthy merchant. 
James Lloyd Chamberlain (6:1) of Talbot, wealthy merchant and 
large landowner. 

Samuel Chase (5:1) of Annapolis, well-to-do lawyer and entre- 

David Crawford (5:1) of Prince George's, wealthy merchant and 

large landowner. 
John Dashiell (6:1) of Somerset, well-to-do large farmer. 
John De Butts (51^:1) of St. Mary's, wealthy large landowner. 
Henry Dennis (5:1) of Worcester, well-to-do large landowner and 


John Done (14:1) of Somerset, well-to-do lawyer. 
Arnold Elzey (8:1) of Somerset, well-to-do doctor (?) . 
William Fell (9i/ 2 :l) of Baltimore town, wealthy lawyer and large 

William Fitzhugh, Jr. (5-1) of Calvert, wealthy landowner. 
Erasmus Gantt (6:1) of Prince Georges, substantial farmer (?) . 
Thomas Hardcastle (5:1) of Caroline, well-to-do large landowner. 
James Hindman (5:1) of Talbot, well-to-do or wealthy merchant. 
Edward Johnson (6:1) of Calvert, substantial doctor. 
William Keene (9i/£:l) of Caroline, well-to-do large fanner. 
Peter Mantz (all) of Frederick, evidently a substantial businessman. 
John Parnham (6i/ 2 :l) of Charles, well-to-do doctor. 
Gillis Polk (6:1) of Somerset, moderate large farmer. 
Gustavus Scott (11:1) of Dorchester, well-to-do lawyer. 
John Somerville (all) of St. Mary's, wealthy merchant and large 

Thomas Stone (all) of Charles, well-to-do lawyer. 
Zephaniah Turner (7:1) of Charles, substantial (?) official. 


John Beatty (8:1) of Frederick, moderate (?) farmer (?) . 
Thomas Cockey Deye (4i/£:l) of Baltimore, wealthy large land- 

Richard Cromwell (all) of Washington, substantial large farmer. 
Jacob Funk (5:1) of Washington, well-to-do pioneer entrepreneur. 
Rezin Hammond (9:1) of Baltimore, wealthy large landowner. 
John H. Harrison (all) of Charles, unknown. 
William Holmes (12:1) of Montgomery, moderate farmer. 
Thomas Hughlett (5:1) of Caroline, moderate farmer (?) . 
Josiah Johnson (5:1) of Kent, moderate farmer. 


Peter Lawson (5:1) of Cecil, well-to-do large landowner. 
James M'Comas (10: 1) of Harford, substantial large farmer. 
John Stull (5:1) of Washington, well-to-do large farmer. 
Ignatius Wheeler (6:1) of Harford, well-to-do large landowner. 
Nicholas Worthington (4:1) of Anne Arundel, wealthy large land- 

Samuel Worthington (4:1) of Baltimore, wealthy large landowner 

PROMINENT NEUTRALS (votes with B given first) 

Thomas Beatty, of Frederick (47-36), substantial farmer (?). 
Benjamin Brevard, of Cecil (55-75), moderate farmer. 
George Digges, of Prince George's (53-37), wealthy large land- 

John Hall, of Anne Arundel (35:43), wealthy lawyer and large 

James Kent, of Queen Anne's (46:38) moderate farmer. 

Charles Ridgely of William, of Baltimore (43-44) moderate farmer. 



By Raymond S. Sweeney 

Public education in the period 1900-1920 reflected the goals 
and values of the Progressive Movement; as Progressi- 
vism in general represented an effort to realize the ideals of 
America, so educational Progressivism in particular stood as 
an attempt to better the lives of the people by increasing the 
efficiency and expanding the roles of the schools. Progressive 
Education— Progressivism in education— originated shortly 
after the Civil War; its ideas gained currency among the in- 
tellectual and educational leaders about 1900; by 1915 the 
movement had expanded and gained political power. The 
concern of the Progressives for social reform and scientific ob- 
jectivity found expression in the field of public education in 
the form of the survey movement— a series of investigatory 
reviews of educational organizations at all levels which sprang 
from the muckrakers' exposes in the 1890's. The coming of 
the survey movement to Maryland in the nineteen-teens her- 
alded the arrival of Progressive Education and significant re- 
form in the public schools of the state. 1 

By 1913, some educators in Maryland had been aware of 
many of the problems of the state schools for years. Three men 
in particular had worked to advance public education in the 
state; their ideas and examples established the base on which 
later reforms were built. 

Martin Bates Stephens was State Superintendent of Schools 
from 1900 to 1920. Although he worked hard to improve the 

1 Lawrence Arthur Cremin, The Transformation of the School (New York, 
1962), viii-ix, 3-5, 21-22, 88, 179-185; Joseph Mever Rice, "Our Public School 
System: Evils in Baltimore," Forum, XIV (October, 1892), 145-158; Edward 
Franklin Buchner, Educational Surveys, U. S. Bureau of Education Bulletin, 
1918, No. 45, 3-4. 




state's educational complex, Stephens was a slow moving re- 
former. He emphasized increasing the efficiency of the edu- 
cational organization from within rather than the reformation 
of the laws which were its foundation; Stephens sponsored 
highly publicized school-day "rallies"— complete with parades, 
speeches, and athletic contests— published and distributed year- 
ly reports of the Board of Education, and conscientiously 
enforced legislation already enacted. Under the existing, con- 
fining school codes he could hardly have done more. 2 

After the reform of Baltimore's city charter in 1899 resulted 
in the appointment of a forward-looking City Board of Edu- 
cation, this board elected James H. Van Sickle of Denver as 
City School Superintendent. The board and Van Sickle then 
began to revamp the city's schools, and during the next twelve 
years they made a great deal of progress. Professional standards 
of teachers were raised; attendance improved; many inefficient 
and ill-trained officials and teachers were dismissed; and the 
quality and extent of supervision were increased. By 1911, how- 
ever, several politically motivated appointments had been made 
to the board, and an administrative accident allowed Mayor 
Preston, a spoilsman unfriendly to Van Sickle's policies, to 
shift the balance against the progressives. Baltimore city lost 
its fine superintendent and the remaining reforming members 
of its Board of Education in spite of the eleventh-hour pub- 
lication of a U. S. Bureau of Education report scoring the 
mayor's position and substantiating that of Van Sickle. The 
superintendent left, but his work had been effective; not only 
did the city of Baltimore profit by his twelve-year tenure, but 
the state itself waited less than five years before adopting meas- 
ures similar to those he instituted. 3 

The third leading educator to appear in the state at the 
turn of the century was Albert S. Cook, who served as Super- 
intendent of the Baltimore County Schools— totally unrelated 

' Abraham Flexner and Frank Puterbaugh Bachman. (Public Education in 
Maryland (New York, 1916), 22-29; Baltimore Sun, 21 October 1913; 29 October 
1913; Stephens to Governor Goldsborough, March-November, 1914, Govern- 
or's Correspondence, Hall of Records, Annapolis. 

8 George Drayton Strayer, "The Baltimore School Situation," Educational 
Review, XLII (November, 1911), 325-345; U. S. Bureau of Education, Report 
of the Commission Appointed to Study the System of Education in the Pub- 
lic Schools of Baltimore, Bureau of Education Bulletin, 1911, No. 4. 



to the Baltimore city system— for twenty years. Cook initiated 
in the county virtually all the measures associated with Stephens 
and Van Sickle. He had, in addition, some national stature 
as a result of the many articles he wrote for educational jour- 
nals. He led the campaign in Maryland to establish "summer 
institutes" for retraining teachers, and he conscientiously 
sought and got public support for his actions by providing 
for wide distribution of county reports. 4 

Stephens, Van Sickle, and Cook injected a note of change 
and progress into the realm of Maryland's public schools. 
Three minor school surveys served to reinforce this note and 
further to prepare the state for large-scale investigation and 

In 1908, Governor Austin Crothers appointed a commis- 
sion to study the "general educational interests" of Maryland. 
This ten-man commission— Superintendent Stephens being the 
only prominent educator appointed to it— met five times and 
issued a report in 1910. Although centering about state book- 
keeping methods, the commission's recommendations also 
touched on the need for more and better-trained teachers and 
supervisors, for additional courses in industrial and agricul- 
tural education, and for more co-ordination between the pub- 
lic schools and the colleges. Two of the more significant sug- 
gestions—which may have incensed opposition to the 1915 
survey— were that state aid to higher education be channelled 
not directly to the colleges of the state but to students in 
the form of scholarships, and that state funds be allocated to the 
counties more on the basis of school attendance than on school- 
age population. 6 

The Federal report which endorsed Van Sickle's position in 
Baltimore city was merely one indication of an increasing in- 
terest in public education being displayed by the U. S. Gov- 
ernment. This 1911 account and a 1913 survey of Montgom- 
ery County Schools both emphasized the need for "practical" 
instruction, especially in industrial and agricultural subjects; 

* Baltimore Sun, 11 February 1914; 5 June 1920; Amy Cooper Crewe, No. 
Backward Step Was Taken (Baltimore, 1949), 61-83; "The Maryland School 
Superintendency," School and Society, XI (19 June 1920), 739-740. 

6 Maryland, Department of Education, A Report of the Maryland Educa- 
tion Commission, Department of Education Bulletin, 1910, No. 2, 1-10. 


emphasis on the practical came to be the hallmark o£ educa- 
tional Progressivism. The Montgomery County study criti- 
cized the county's slowness in consolidating rural schools and 
its run-down physical plant. The Bureau of Education in- 
quiries not only popularized the survey idea in Maryland but 
also pointed up the advantages inherent in criticism by an 
out-of-state agency. 8 

Although these studies played some role in preparing the 
state for the coming of general educational reform, it took a 
report which hit at Maryland's pride to get real action. In 
early 1913, the Russell Sage Foundation released a bulletin, 
A Comparative Study of State School Systems in the Forty- 
Eight States; Maryland ranked thirty-sixth in "general effi- 
ciency," and as low as forty-sixth and forty-seventh in average 
school attendance and in money spent per child. The great 
impact the report had was probably linked to the statement 
by the Sage Foundation that it had sent copies of the publi- 
cation to every member of every state legislature which met 
during that year. 7 

The publication of the Sage report was a landmark in the 
history of education in Maryland. Before 1913 people associ- 
ated with the schools of the state were more or less divided 
into two groups: those who were directly involved— superin- 
tendents, teachers, members of educational associations— some 
of whom wanted to bring about reform but lacked the power 
to effect significant state-wide change; and those who had 
power— state legislators, the Governor, high-ranking politi- 
cians—but who evidenced little strong or co-ordinated desire 
to bring about broad revision. After 1913, however, it be- 
came more difficult to distinguish one group from the other; 
those with power began to accept progressive values and thus 
executed a major revolution in the state system of public 

Though the Sage rating was significant, neither it nor any 

* Cremin, The Transformation, 88; "A Civic Center School in Baltimore," 
School and Society, IX (28 June 1919), 781-782; Hermann Nelson Morse et al, 
An Educational Survey of a Suburban and Rural County; Montgomery County, 
Maryland, V. S. Bureau of Education Bulletin, 1913, No. 32, 1-68. 

''Baltimore Sun, 5 January 1913; 14 February 1914; 8 February 1914. 



other one report or speech or action was responsible in itself 
for the new school codes of 1916. The Sage bulletin was a 
catalyst; it marked the beginning of a movement which, until 
the appearance of the report, had manifested itself almost ex- 
clusively within the ranks of professional educators. When 
the educators who had paved the way were joined in their 
demands for reform by the Governor, some state legislators, 
and the powerful Sun papers, they were able to fire the idea 
of a state educational survey with the spirit of the times and 
use it as an engine of reform. 

Since the Legislature of Maryland did not meet in 1913, Gov- 
ernor Phillips Lee Goldsborough— Republican, 1912-1916 — 
made the initial political moves toward revised legislation for 
the schools. Speaking at the commencement exercises of the 
University of Maryland, the Governor announced that he 
would appoint yet another commission of businessmen and 
educators to study Maryland's schools. At that time— through- 
out the year, in fact— the emphasis was on unifying the colleges 
of Maryland and making a large state university the "nucleus" 
around which a new school system could develop. Thomas 
Fell, Provost of the University of Maryland, had visited the 
University of Wisconsin at Goldsborough's request; Fell's re- 
port of his trip led to the idea of a commission. The Govern- 
or's commencement speech was the first move by the state 
government in the direction of an effective educational sur- 
vey of Maryland. 8 

The most significant reaction to the commencement speech 
came when a Marylander on the faculty of Teachers College 
Columbia University took Goldsborough seriously and sug- 
gested positive steps to bring about an objective study. John 
Montgomery Gambrill corresponded with the Governor 
throughout the remainder of 1913 concerning the possibility 
of expanding the commission idea to include an impartial sur- 
vey by an outside organization. Gambrill had connections with 
the Carnegie Foundation, which was currently involved in a 
well-publicized survey of the schools of Vermont. Goldsbor- 
ough was in direct touch with the Carnegie Foundation that 
autumn, trying to convince the Secretary that Maryland would 

"Baltimore Sun, 1 June 1913. 


be a likely subject for the next state-wide survey after Ver- 
mont. Although the reaction of the Foundation was negative 
at first, and although Fell and Stephens had suspicions con- 
cerning any out-of-state agency, the Governor persisted well 
into the next year with his efforts to get the Carnegie people 
to undertake the study. 9 

Others took up and publicized the idea of doing something 
during the coming legislative session about Maryland's dated 
educational codes. School rallies, backed by Goldsborough and 
Superintendent Stephens, were held in support of such measures 
as compulsory attendance laws and a lengthened term. In an 
extended interview with The Baltimore Sun, State Senator 
William Milnes Maloy stated that he would submit a plan 
calling for a commission to investigate the state's educational 
system. Maloy's aims— the union of some of Maryland's col- 
leges and their coordination with public instruction— had a 
familiar ring; they were nearly identical to those voiced by 
the Governor in the University of Maryland commencement 
address. (Active cooperation between Goldsborough and Ma- 
loy at this stage may only be inferred; as the Governor's cor- 
respondence makes clear, however, there existed a liaison of 
considerable proportions between the two in the summer of 
1914.) Now the survey had the backing of a member of the 
state Legislature as well as that of the Chief Executive. 10 

Increasingly The Sun featured articles and news stories 
about the possibility of a survey. A prominent editorial by 
J. Montgomery Gambrill of Columbia University appeared in 
December, 1913, apparently with Goldsborough's blessing, 
which emphasized the Carnegie Foundation's Vermont in- 
quiry, the probable benefits to Maryland of a similar study 
here, and the Governor's efforts with the Foundation. The 
following day The Sun printed an editorial agreeing with Gam- 

•The following letters are from the Governor's Correspondence, Hall of 
Records, Annapolis: Gambrill to Goldsborough, 9 June 1913; 13 October 1913; 
1 December 1913; 13 December 1913: Goldborough to Gambrill, 14 June 1913; 
15 October 1913; 1 December 1913; 5 December 1913; Fell to Goldsborough, 
6 March 1914; Goldsborough to Fell, 7 March 1914; Baltimore Sun, 1 December 
1913; 17 February 1914; 4 June 1914. 

10 Fell to Goldsborough, 29 June 1914; Maloy to Goldsborough, 18 May 
1914; Goldsborough to Maloy, 19 May 1914; 1 June 1914; Baltimore Sun, 
21 October 1913; 19 November 1913; 1 January 1915. 



brill and lauding the Governor's efforts. During the next six 
months the paper made it a policy to highlight educational 
news and consistently to urge the Governor and the law-makers 
to push for a survey bill. As the legislative session approached, 
the movement for a survey assumed more and more the char- 
acter of a Progressive-style campaign. 11 

Later in December a joint conference of the legislative com- 
mittees of the State Board of Education, the State Teachers' 
Association, and the School Commissioners' Association met. 
Drafts of bills approved by this conference provided for higher 
standards for new teachers, a compulsory attendance law, addi- 
tional training for teachers already on the payroll, and a scale 
of minimum wages for teachers. Although similar resolutions 
had come from these organizations for the preceding several 
years, this joint action underlined the need of Maryland's 
school system for a thorough investigation. 12 

The Maryland Legislature of 1914 was committed to re- 
formist values; the school survey was only one of several Pro- 
gressive measures to receive favorable attention. The Demo- 
cratically-dominated Maryland Senate and House of Delegates 
revised their own procedural rules in such a way as to lessen 
the power of committee heads and to make the Legislature 
more sensitive to the will of the people of the state. An oyster 
conservation regulation, a new road construction law, and new 
public health codes were among the legislation passed in 1914. 
The spirit of the session and its ties to the mood of the nation 
were exemplified by an editorial cartoon by McKee Barclay 
in The Sun: in a variation on the RCA trademark, a donkey 
("Maryland Democrats") sat attentively before a gramophone 
("The New Freedom") which broadcast "Honesty! Efficiency! 
Service! Progress! Pledges!" 13 

Pressure for a survey bill mounted after an address by U. S. 
Commissioner of Education Philander Priestly Claxton to 

"Gambrill to Goldsborough, 13 October 1913; 1 December 1913; Golds- 
borough to Gambrill, 5 December 1913; John Montgomery Gambrill, "Mary- 
land's Educational Problem," Baltimore Sun, 1 December 1913; 2 December 1913. 

12 Baltimore Sun, 20 December 1913; Maryland, Board ot Education, Forty 
Fourth Annual Report, 1910, 94-97; Forty-Eighth Annual Report 1914, 90-93, 
96-103, 147-150. 

"Baltimore Sun, 5 January 1914; 7 January 1914; 8 January 1914; 9 March 
1914; 7 April 1914; 8 April 1914. 


a joint hearing of the Committees of Education of the state 
Legislature. Senator Maloy, concerned over Maryland's rating 
in the Sage Foundation report, had invited Claxton to speak. 
Although sympathetic with Maryland's problems, the Com- 
missioner supported the findings of the Sage Foundation. He 
suggested that the Legislature appoint a commission to study 
the educational needs of the state and recommend new laws. 
Claxton also described his ideal school board— long-termed, 
non-partisan, and professional— and suggested raising stand- 
ards for hiring new teachers. The Sun published a detailed 
article about the Carnegie Foundation Vermont investigation 
and urged the Legislature to refrain from passing additional 
school laws until a first-rate examination had been made in 
Maryland. Moved by The Sun's article and Claxton's talk, 
Senator Maloy issued a long statement on a possible educa- 
tional inquiry. Maloy agreed with The Sun's editorial and 
said he would try to scrap most of the pending school legisla- 
tion plans except for the State University bill and a survey 
measure. The Governor, prompted by the editorial, made a 
statement in which he endorsed the paper's position and re- 
vealed more details of his correspondence with the Carnegie 
Foundation. Another influential voice was added to the call 
for an investigation when Dr. Edward F. Buchner of Johns 
Hopkins University spoke out in favor of such a study. By 
February enough powerful people backed the idea to make it 
a reality; a survey bill moved toward realization, supported by 
Governor Goldsborough, state Senator Maloy and The Balti- 
more Sun. 1 * 

During the next two months the proponents of the measure 
succeeded in pushing it through the Legislature. Claxton 
spoke again in Maryland in early March; The Sun kept urging 
the Governor and the State House to act; Goldsborough con- 
sulted with the state's educators. Superintendent of Schools 
Stephens submitted a draft— striking in its similarity to the 
final bill— to the Governor; Senator Maloy introduced his bill 
and, against formidable opposition, guided it through both 
houses. Clyde Furst, Secretary of the Carnegie Foundation, 

11 Baltimore Sun, 14 February 1914; 15 February 1914; 16 February 1914; 
17 February 1914. 



addressed Baltimore's City Club, and it appeared that it would 
be Furst's organization which would conduct the survey. With 
the final enactment of the Maloy Bill, the Free State commit- 
ted itself to a review of its educational system. 15 

As passed, the legislation provided for a three-man Survey 
Commission, appointed by the Governor, to study thoroughly 
Maryland's school complex, including all non-public institu- 
tions which received state funds. The Legislature provided 
$5,000 for expenses, but no money for salaries. The Commis- 
sioners would be free to call in outside agencies and to hire in- 
vestigators, and officials of the public schools were directed to 
cooperate fully with them. The Commission, once created, had 
full investigatory powers but very little money; it would have 
to find an organization willing to pay its own expenses if the 
survey were to be thorough. 16 

Opposition to the Survey Bill by Maryland's institutions of 
higher learning points out the peculiar relationship which 
then existed between the colleges and the state, a relationship 
which may have retarded the advancement of the public schools. 
There were many colleges receiving public assistance in Mary- 
land, but none was wholly under the state's control or fully 
a part of its educational system. Professional and accrediting 
organizations were exerting great pressure on these institu- 
tions to come together under the auspices of the state and to 
form a true university. Thomas Fell, one-time head of both 
the University of Maryland in Baltimore and Saint John's 
College in Annapolis, favored a state-sponsored, voluntary as- 
sociation. Others, including Governor Goldsborough, pre- 
ferred a mandatory union. The colleges opposed the school 
survey because they feared that such a review, especially from 
an out-of-state agency, would result in legislation forcing a 
fusion of the institutions; they resisted consolidation because 
Maryland's Legislature had fallen into the habit of allocating 
funds to the various schools in a manner which made it advan- 
tageous for each to remain separated from the others. Every 

"Baltimore Sun, 6 March 1914; 19 March 1914; 20 March 1914; Fell to 
Goldsborough, 6 March 1914; Goldsborough to Fell, 7 March 1914; Stephens 
to Goldsborough, II March 1914. 

"Baltimore Sun, 19 March 1914; Flexner and Bachman, Public Education, 



two years the Legislature met and decided which schools would 
get how much money; the result was a great deal of undigni- 
fied lobbying on the part of scholars, a continued lack of 
public control over the colleges, and a large group of admin- 
istrators and faculty members with a vested interest in main- 
taining the status quo. The smaller colleges feared the survey 
because it might threaten their independence, the larger 
ones because it might threaten their incomes. Governor Golds- 
borough and Senator Maloy felt they had sufficiently powerful 
public support to overcome the opposition when they ear- 
nestly began their campaign for a survey in February, 1914. 
The combined influence of the colleges, of spoilsmen such as 
Mayor Preston and of those such as Dr. Stephens who feared 
the lack of understanding of an out-of-state group was nearly 
enough to defeat the Maloy Bill. There were, however, only 
two apparent compromises made in order to get it through 
the Legislature: the Commission had to be composed of Mary- 
landers, and the appropriation was cut from an original $10,000 
to $5,000. In the end the act passed the Legislature and was 
signed by the Governor. The conservative, vested-interest 
nature of its opposition served only to underline the Progres- 
sive thrust of the bill's intent. 17 

Actual preparations for the study consumed the remainder 
of the year. The Governor appointed the three members of 
the Survey Commission. B. Howell Griswold, a prominent 
Baltimore banker and friend of Goldsborough, became chair- 
man; he was assisted by a retired Army Colonel and the Mayor 
of Hagerstown. Both The Sun and Senator Maloy approved 
of the Governor's choices. Continued attempts by Goldsbor- 
ough and the Commission to get the Carnegie Foundation to 
conduct the survey proved fruidess. The Commission next 
contacted the General Education Board, an adjunct of the 
Rockefeller Foundation which was attempting to further pro- 
gressive educational policies in the South, and was successful 

" George Hardy Callcott, A History of the University of Maryland (Balti- 
more, 1965), 276-280; Baltimore Sun, 7 February 1914; 16 February 1914; 17 
February 1914; 19 March 1914; 28 March 1914; 29 March 1914; 8 April 1914; 
Fell to Goldsborough, 2 January 1914; 6 March 1914; 29 June 1914; Golds- 
borough to Fell, 7 March 1914; 1 July 1914; Strayer, "Baltimore School Situ- 
ation," 333-345. 



in obtaining its services. The $5,000 appropriation made by 
the state was supplemented by an additional $7,500 contribu- 
tion from the General Education Board. By the end of the 
year, definite arrangements were completed for an investiga- 
tion to begin in January, 1915. 18 

Chairman Griswold had agreed that the Board would have 
an entirely free hand to conduct the study and that the find- 
ings and conclusions of the Rockefeller unit would be pub- 
lished regardless of whether they were in accord with those of 
the state Commission. Before the survey began, therefore, the 
state had pledged itself, if not necessarily to accept its con- 
clusions, at least to cooperate with and publish the results of 
a study of its system of public education conducted by an 
out-of-state agency. Publicity about the actual investigation 
was, by an agreement between Goldsborough and Griswold, 
kept at a minimum while it was in progress. 19 

As the survey got under way, the state Commission and the 
General Education Board further narrowed its scope. The 
1914 law had been passed with the intention of reviewing all 
branches of Maryland's educational complex which received 
sfate funds, but the survey as it was carried out covered only 
the public schools of the counties; the academies, higher edu- 
cation, and the schools of Baltimore city were not considered. 
Since the state Commission earnestly recommended in its 
final report that further studies should be made which would 
include Baltimore and the colleges, and since there is appar- 
ently no evidence to the contrary, this last-minute limitation 
probably represented a mutual agreement between the Com- 
mission and the Board; it was no doubt more a result of finan- 
cial and personnel factors than of pressures from the anti- 
survey forces. 20 

Abraham Flexner, Chairman of the General Education 
Board, exercised general supervision of the operation from 

"Cremin, The Transformation, 81; Flexner and Bachman, Public Educa- 
cation, viii; Baltimore Sun, 12 April 1914; 28 May 1914; 2 June 1914; 4 June 
1914; 23 December 1914; Griswold to Goldsborough, 6 March 1914; 5 Novem- 
ber 1914; 20 November 1914; Goldsborough to Griswold, 7 March 1914; 20 
November 1914; Maloy to Goldsborough, 28 May 1914. 

" Flexner and Bachman, Public Education, vii-viii; Griswold to Golds- 
borough, 15 January 1915; 29 January 1915. 

"Flexner and Bachman, Public Education, viii-x. 



New York. Frank P. Bachman took charge of the actual in- 
vestigation in Maryland, and did much of the research and 
interviewing himself. Flexner and Bachman, who had con- 
ducted the negotiations with Goldsborough and Griswold on 
behalf of their organization, were both experienced with other 
surveys, and each had published educational research before. 
A statistician and an experienced field agent in Negro educa- 
tion assisted Bachman in collecting and evaluating informa- 
tion. In the course of his work, Bachman visited every county 
in Maryland and interviewed over 16% of the white and over 
10% of the Negro teachers in the state. The only major criti- 
cism of the survey's methods voiced at the time was that newly 
developed standardized tests were not used in order to deter- 
mine the level of training of teachers more objectively. With 
the understanding that the state definitely anticipated no in- 
crease in educational expenditures, apparent full cooperation 
between Bachman's team, the state Commission, and Superin- 
tendent Stephens' Department of Education marked the prog- 
ress of the study. 21 

The Survey Commission presented its findings to Governor 
Goldsborough in 1915, during his final days in office. Aside 
from the brief preface, in which the Commission concurred 
with the conclusions and recommendations reached by the 
Board, the General Education Board wrote the entire report. 

The criticisms published by the Survey Commission centered 
about two major contentions— that the school system of the 
state was "in politics," and that laws regulating the operation 
of the system itself were ineffective, mostly because of inade- 
quate provisions for supervision and attendance. 

The Maryland school complex of 1915 was based on statutes 
which provided for apportionment of seats on the State Board 
of Education according to which party won local elections. 
"Senatorial courtesy" and the necessity of Senate approval of 
gubernatorial appointments gave each state senator full con- 
trol over the school board membership of his county. The re- 
sult was that senators "appointed" school board members on 
a strictly partisan basis; the county boards of education tended 

11 Flexner and Bachman, Public Education, vii, xviii; "Educational Writings," 
Elementary School Journal, XVI (April, 1916), 400-406. 



to select county superintendents by the same method; and 
superintendents generally were not above filling positions in 
the schools in like manner. A front-page cartoon by McKee 
Barclay in The Sun portrayed accurately the general reaction 
to this state of affairs when the results of the survey were pub- 
lished: a well-fed gentleman ("State School System") was 
shown straying from the path leading "To Economy and Effi- 
ciency" arm-in-arm with a painted floozy ("Polly Ticks"); the 
outraged matron ("Tax Payer") looked on and commented, 
"This'll bear lookin' into!" 22 

The operational flaws in Maryland's public schools, aside 
from those directly associated with the political problem, in- 
cluded few qualified supervisors and teachers, low standards 
set for hiring personnel, poor attendance by students, ineffi- 
cient methods of allotting state funds to the counties, and poor 
physical facilities. 23 

The report did compliment the state on its use of the 
county— instead of the electoral district or some other division 
—as the basic unit in public education. This commendation 
and occasional praise for Superintendent Cook's efforts in Bal- 
timore County did little to blunt the generally critical thrust 
of the review. 2 * 

That there were distinct similarities between the faults 
found by Bachman and his team and those which individual 
school leaders in Maryland had been pointing out since about 
1910 indicates that the state's educational needs were not un- 
known; they were simply neglected. Now, however, Mary- 
land's deficiencies had been documented by a disinterested 
party and published— to be read by educators throughout the 
country. Now the Free State would have to do something. 25 

The 1916 Legislature did do something. With the support of 
recently-inaugurated Governor Emerson C. Harrington (Dem- 

M Flexner and Bachman, Public Education, xi-xii, xvii, 8-9, 32-34, 43-44; 
Baltimore Sun, 7 February 1916; 8 February 1916; 9 February 1916. 

"Flexner and Bachman, Public Education, xv-xviii, 26, 28-29, 44-45, 58-79, 

u Ibid., 30-32, 45-56. 

" Maryland, Board of Education, Thirty-Ninth Annual Report, 1905, 123- 
128; Forty-Fifth Annual Report, 1911, 94-97, 154-158; Forty-Ninth Annual Re- 
port, 1915, 90-93, 96-103, 147-150. 



ocrat, 1916-1920) and the editorial backing of The Sun, the 
law-makers quickly passed a sweeping new set of school codes 
—drawn up by the Survey Commission and incorporating most 
of the suggestions of the General Education Board. 26 

The only traces of overt opposition to the new laws came from 
Allegany County. Some members of the county Democratic 
Committee objected to the continuance in office of Republican 
appointees of Governor Goldsborough which would result 
when the new laws became effective. 27 

The new school codes effectively removed the state and 
county school boards from the cock's pit of local politics by 
abolishing the necessity of senatorial consent for gubernatorial 
appointments and by lengthening and staggering board mem- 
bers' terms. The new laws provided minimum standards, such 
as graduate work or teaching experience for nearly all offices 
in the State Department of Education. The state and county 
school boards and supervisors received more power to enforce 
their policies. In the balance of authority between county and 
state, the latter gained; every county was required to have a 
county superintendent, and all teachers were henceforth certi- 
fied only by the state. The first effective, state-wide compulsory 
attendance laws were part of the package, and each county had 
to enforce them with at least one full-time attendance officer. 
To encourage voluntary compliance with the attendance stat- 
utes, the state shifted its system for apportioning funds from 
one based wholly on school-age population to one based par- 
tially on the percentage of the school-age population actually 
attending classes. The final major laws abolished all appro- 
priations to the privately-controlled academies, established 
a minimum salary scale for white school teachers and officials, 
and lengthened the minimum school year for Negro children 
—this last measure is notable because it was the only reform 
provision designed exclusively to improve Negro education. 

"Baltimore Sun, 7 February 1916, 26 February 1916, 14 May 1916. 

27 The following correspondence is from Legislative Letters, 1916, Hall of 
Records, Annapolis: Dr. J. Marshall Price to Hugh McMullen (Comptroller 
of the Treasury and a state Democratic party leader), 17 March 1916; E. A. 
Browning and J. W. Holman to Governor Harrington, 16 March 1916; Olin R. 
Rice to Harrington, 17 March 1916. 



With the passage of this legislation, Maryland took a giant step 
forward in the field of public instruction. 28 

In later years, the school survey of 1915 assumed the place 
of a landmark in the development of popular education in 
Maryland. A decade and a half afterwards the State Board of 
Education, in summing up the progress made in the preceding 
ten years under Governor Albert C. Ritchie and State Super- 
intendent Cook, pointed with pride to new laws and improved 
administration, the roots of which reached back to the enact- 
ments of 1916. Another publication of the State Board quoted 
Frank P. Bachman, director of the 1915 survey, as having said 
of the 1916 statutes that "Maryland now has the best legally 
established, the most unified, the most efficient and the most 
professional state school system in America." Even granting 
that Bachman had some interest in seeing the seedling he 
helped plant bear fruit, still this was high praise from the man 
whose earlier investigations had been so critical. The next 
state-wide study of the public schools of Maryland came in 
1941; it was conducted by a team of professors, mostly from 
Teachers College, Columbia University. Summarizing the 1916 
legislation, the authors gave what may be the most authorita- 
tive estimate of the value of the 1915 investigation: "Over the 
years the recommendations which grew out of that study have 
been of tremendous value in giving direction to the expansion 
of the Maryland school system." The survey of 1915 has taken 
its place in the history of public education in Maryland as the 
foundation on which the twentieth century schools of the 
state are built. 29 

Some advances in Maryland's school system which resulted 
from the 1915 survey and the 1916 laws are subject to measure- 
ment. The most striking improvements took place in attend- 
ance and enrollment— despite some resistance to the attend- 

28 Beginning with the second edition, Flexner and Bachman included the 
new school codes of Maryland as an appendix to Public Education, 177-230; 
Baltimore Sun, 7 February 1916, 26 February 1916, 14 May 1916. 

29 Maryland, Department of Education, A Decade of Progress in Maryland's 
Public Schools 1920-1930, Maryland School Bulletin (October, 1930), Vol. XII, 
No. 2, 1-24; Maryland, Department of Education, Progress in Education in 
Maryland, Maryland School Bulletin (October, 1938), Vol. XX, No. 5, 7-8; 
Maryland, State School Survey Commission, The 1941 Survey of the Maryland 
Public Schools and Teachers Colleges, 17-18; Crewe, No Backward Step, 5. 


ance laws by rural parents who felt that the family and not the 
state should determine whether a child goes to school. Be- 
tween 1916 and 1920 the number of Negro children in county 
high schools more than quadrupled. Overall high school 
enrollment increased 51.1% from 1915 to 1920, and attend- 
ance increased 47.9% in the same period; by 1923, enroll- 
ment had risen 146.9% above the 1915 level and attend- 
ance 148%— showing, perhaps, an acceleration in enforcement 
under State Superintendent Cook. The increase in number 
and quality of school supervisors is also notable. In 1914, 10% 
of the white elementary school teachers and principals had 
education beyond the high school level; by 1922, 40% and by 
1931, 95% had had normal school or college training. In 1914, 
no Negro elementary school teachers or principals had post- 
high school instruction; by 1922, 32% did, and by 1931 the 
figure had risen to 92%. In elementary schools, only three 
counties in 1916 had superintendents; by 1920, nineteen of 
the twenty-three had one or more full-time elementary school 
superintendents. An increase in state funds to schools, an ex- 
pansion of the number of school libraries, and growing pop- 
ularity of summer institutes for teachers— all indicate that the 
improvements resulting from the 1915-1916 codified changes 
were but the skeleton of an increasingly healthy body of school 
reform. 30 

The apparently sudden alterations in Maryland's school sys- 
tem, though of great significance to the state, did not occur 
in a vacuum. Given the context of the national and state-wide 
Progressive Movement and the nucleus of progressive educa- 
tors in the state; given the growing popularity of Progressive 
ideas within Maryland's educational community and the con- 
tinued and accelerating program of the twenties; given all this, 
and the years 1914-1916 may be seen best, perhaps, as the point 
in time at which the tide finally turned in the schools of Mary- 
land. Between the Civil War and the turn of the century, the 
state scarcely stirred in education; between 1900 and 1914 it 

80 School Survey Commission, The 1941 Survey, 32; Maryland, Department 
of Education, Accomplishments and Shortcomings of Maryland Schools, Mary- 
land School Bulletin (November, 1924). Vol. VI, No. 2, 6-7; Maryland, Depart- 
ment of Education, Measurable Evidence of Progress in Maryland Public 
Schools, 1923, Maryland School Bulletin (April, 1924), Vol. V, No. 12, 30-32. 



prepared to move; in 1914 motion began; and by 1920 Mary- 
land was forging ahead, fully committed to continuous edu- 
cational progress. 

Discovering whether or to what degree the school reforms 
in Maryland in the Progressive Era were democratic is a com- 
plicated problem. Simple, yes-or-no answers do not exist, and 
only by carefully delineating context, examining evidence, 
and defining terms may one draw any conclusions at all. 

At the time, the word "democratic" in association with the 
survey and the ensuing legislation was hardly used. When 
it was linked with school laws, the concept of democracy 
seemed to have a somewhat different meaning then than it 
does now. For example, an article in an educational journal 
characterized Baltimore city's planned use of a school as a 
civic center as "a distinctive contribution to the service of 
democratic education." In an educational context, at least, 
"democratic" in the Progressive Era seemed to emphasize sen- 
sitivity to popular control less and service to the public more. 31 

The school reform movement in general and the survey 
idea in particular, if not obviously considered democratic at 
the time, were surely seen then and may be seen now as one 
facet of Progressivism. Progress as an end and reform as a 
means appeared to be basic assumptions of the age. The dis- 
cussion of the survey and the school laws revealed, moreover, 
that those who favored such measures emphasized thrift and 
utilitarianism more than democratic ideals. The drive for 
economy was evident when the advice of the Carnegie and 
Rockefeller Foundations was sought partly because these ben- 
eficent institutions would be willing to pay part of the bill, 
and when the Survey Commission made it clear that it wanted 
improvements without an increase in taxes. Utilitarianism was 
stressed when more industrial and agricultural courses were 
demanded, when wider use of the school plant for civic pur- 

51 "Quotations: A Civic Center School in Baltimore," School and Society, IX 
(28 June 1919), 781-782; U. S., Bureau of Education, Report of the Commis- 
sioner of Education for the Year Ended June 30, 1916, I, 354; U. S., Bureau 
of Education, Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year Ended 
June 30, 1914, I, Ch. 24; Baltimore Sun, 12 April 1914; U. S., Bureau of Edu- 
cation, Report of the Commission Appointed to Study the System of Educa- 
cation in the Public Schools of Baltimore, Bureau of Education Bulletin, 1911, 
No. 4, 102-104. 


poses was praised, and when The Sun's editorials championed 
the use of business-like methods to cut costs and increase the 
quality of education. This drive for economy and usefulness 
also expressed itself as a near-reverent attitude toward the 
scientific; statistical tables and quantitative testing were defi- 
nitely in vogue. At one point, even, a "School Index Number" 
was developed so schools and school systems could be compared 
on a numerical scale. This was the tone of the educational 
reform movement in Maryland: if there was a byword for this 
revolution, it was not "democracy," but "efficiency." 32 

The Progressive nature of the school reforms of the nineteen- 
nineteens was underscored also by the almost total absence of 
attempts to improve the lot of Negro Marylanders. The 
lengthened school year stood alone as legislation designed per 
se for Negroes. Although Maryland's non-white pupils cer- 
tainly benefitted from the new laws, improved schooling spe- 
cifically for Negroes was a neglected cause. U. S. Commissioner 
of Education P. P. Claxton voiced the temper of the times 
when he advocated better schools for Negroes as an alterna- 
tive to a higher crime rate. That attempts to improve the 
quality of Negro education were most noteworthy by their 
absence accentuates both the Progressive complexion of the 
school reforms and the essentially white-supremist character 
of Progressivism. 33 

First-hand documentation indicating that the 1914-1916 
school measures were democratic in the sense that they had 
wide public support is not abundant. A sampling of the Gov- 
ernors' correspondence and legislative letters reveals no great 
number of letters from citizens either for or against educational 
measures. A group of Baltimore Negro ministers wrote Gov- 
ernor Goldsborough in 1913 after the University of Maryland 
commencement address, commending him for the survey idea, 
and a women's club wrote Governor Harrington in 1916 en- 

Above, 5, 11-12, 15; Maryland, Board of Education, Forty-Fifth Annual Re- 
port, 1911, 1-8, 110-114, 124-131; Maryland, Department of Education, Measurable 
Evidence of Progress in Maryland Public Schools, 1923, Maryland School Bul- 
letin (April, 1924), Vol. V, No. 12, 18-19; Flexner and Bachman, Public Educa- 
tion, viii-ix; Baltimore Sun, 5 January 1914; 7 January 1914; 17 January 1914; 9 
March 1914; 8 April 1914; 14 November 1914; 21 January 1918; 27 January 
1918; 23 April 1920. 
"Above, 19-21; Baltimore Sun, 14 February 1914. 


dorsing the compulsory attendance law. Of several hundred 
letters examined, only these two came from citizens' groups 
sanctioning educational reform. 84 

Second-hand sources provide most of the indicators that 
progressive educational legislation was founded on a popular 
consensus, but these sources are subject to ambiguous inter- 
pretation. The school rallies of Stephens, the statements of 
Maloy and Goldsborough to The Sun, and the editorials of 
that paper— all lead to the same question as to their signifi- 
cance: to what degree were they attempts to generate public 
support, and to what degree were they reflections of existing 
approbation? 35 

The strongest evidence of popular approval is negative or 
deductive in nature. First, there was no indication at all of 
wide-spread public opposition to the 1914-1916 school meas- 
ures; had such existed, it should have been evident. Second, 
the "tone" of the reform did fit in perfectly with the Progres- 
sive mood of the state. Third, the nature of such opposition 
as did appear was so conservative that popular sympathy for 
the measures may nearly be inferred. Finally, the very fact 
that the 1914 and 1916 laws did pass the Legislature says some- 
thing about the extent of the public's endorsement of them. 
It is highly unlikely that the Delegates and Senators of Mary- 
land voted for regulations that might have resulted in their 
losing at the polls. If extensive backing did not exist for the 
school reforms, it is nearly certain that Maryland's legislators 
thought it did. 36 

Progressive without a doubt, there is only one way in which 
the new school laws can be seen as unequivocally democratic, 
and that is by considering who profited most by their passage. 
Those who gained from the new statutes lend them without 
a doubt a quality of democracy, for the primary beneficiaries 
were those who received, year after year, more and better 
quality education— the school-children and consequently the 
people of the state of Maryland. 

" Reverend A. L. Gaines to Goldsborough, 5 June 1913, Governor's Cor- 
respondence, Hall of Records, Annapolis; Mary F. Strasser to Harrington, 
8 March 1916, Legislative Letters, Hall of Records, Annapolis. 

SB Above, 2, 6-9; Stephens to Goldsborough, 20 April 1914; Baltimore Sun, 
16 February 1914. 

" Above, 12-13, 18, 21. 


n February 22, 1865, Cumberland, Maryland, was the scene 

V^Jof one of the most daring episodes of the American Civil 
War. In the cold of early morning before sunrise a group of 
southern partisan guerrilla fighters, called McNeill's Rangers, 
marched brazenly into the snow-covered Federal stronghold of 
Cumberland, captured the two top ranking officers of the Depart- 
ment of West Virginia who were stationed there, and success- 
fully made their escape. This event was of minor significance 
to the total war effort on either side but illustrated the south- 
erners' willingness to fight even at this late date in the hostili- 
ties. At this time the war might have seemed a lost cause to 
many, but McNeill's men tenaciously held onto the hope of 
gaining a local victory that would satisfy their need for revenge 
and possibly would bring them a certain amount of glory. 

Generals George Crook and Benjamin Kelley, the two Union 
officers captured by the southern raiders, had spent the past 
several years attempting to rid the Cumberland area of trouble- 
some partisan fighters, the most annoying group being Mc- 
Neill's men. General Kelley was active in western Virginia 1 
at the beginning of the war. In the battle of Philippi he re- 
ceived a severe wound which limited his battlefield activities. 
As the war progressed his responsibility revolved primarily 
around the defense of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad in 
West Virginia. 2 

General Crook had a particularly enviable record against 

1 Now present day West Virginia which was separated from Virginia and 
gained its statehood on June 20, 1863. 

"Charles H. Ambler and Festus P. Summers, West Virginia, The Mountain 
State (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1958), p. 43; Mark Mayo Boatner III, 
The Civil War Dictionary (New York, 1959), p. 450. 

By John W. Bailey Jr. 




southern guerrilla fighters during the war, and his capture was 
very embarrassing to him. While serving in West Virginia 
during the earlier stages of the war, he demonstrated his ability 
in counter-guerrilla leadership. In Nicholas County near the 
town of Summerville many Confederate partisans operated in 
an environment ideally suited for "bushwhackers." The land 
was heavily timbered with thick underbrush and dense laurel 
thickets. Here the guerrilla could attack unsuspecting soldiers 
and civilians alike, plunder his victims, and vanish into the 
forest. The lives and property of all Union sympathizers be- 
came fair game for the Rebels, thereby creating a need for 
numerous Union troops to serve as escorts. It became a mili- 
tary necessity to vanquish the Confederate guerrillas and Crook 
set out to accomplish this task. 3 

First, he selected some of his best men and sent them into 
the surrounding countryside with instructions to study its ter- 
rain for possible hiding places and to learn the loyalties of its 
inhabitants. Crook's men searched the forests for the enemy 
and captured many prisoners. General William S. Rosecrans, 
Crook's superior officer, ordered that the prisoners be confined 
to Camp Chase, near Columbus, Ohio. Soon these same "bush- 
whackers," who had been paroled from prison or exchanged 
for Union prisoners, began to return to the Summerville area 
in fine health and high spirits. These men were confident of 
themselves and defiant of the Union soldiers. Crook and his 
men became discouraged. Now they knew the identification 
of the southerners, but it seemed useless to capture them again 
and return the arrogant Rebels to Camp Chase. In a short 
time, however, the Federal soldiers had solved this problem 
once and for all. 

When the soldiers returned from a scouting trip, they in- 
variably reported that they had caught a "bushwhacker" but 
that he had died in an unfortunate accident. At one time it 
was disclosed that a prisoner had slipped and broken his neck 
while crossing a stream. Similar "accidents" were reported 
frequently until the guerrilla problem was solved around Sum- 
merville. 4 

a George Crook, General George Crook, His Autobiography, Martin F. Schmitt 
(ed.), New Edition (Norman, 1960), pp. 86,87. 
'Ibid., p. 87. 



Crook rounded up "bushwhackers" and thieves in other 
areas of West Virginia, in Georgia, and in northern Alabama. 
Besides his guerrilla encounters, he also fought in several major 
battles: Second Bull Run, Antietam, Chattanooga, and Chick- 
amauga, to name a few. In 1864 the General was ordered back 
to the Potomac Valley to command the Department of West 
Virginia with headquarters in Cumberland, Maryland. 6 

Again he served in an area where Confederate guerrillas 
were active and well organized. Never before had they been 
suppressed to any lasting degree in this general area of north- 
ern Virginia, western Maryland, and northeastern West Vir- 
ginia. 6 John Mosby and his renowned guerrillas dominated 
the area east of the Shenandoah River; Harry Gilmor and his 
men fought in the Valley of Virginia; and John McNeill and 
his Rangers with their principal headquarters at Moorefield, 
West Virginia, raided along the upper Potomac River and its 
south branch. 7 

Moorefield, a quiet town of about 1500 people, was located 
in the center of the rich farming area of the South Branch 
Valley, which was surrounded on either side by high, rough, 
heavy-timbered mountains. Through this picturesque valley 
flowed the clear, wide south branch of the Potomac River. 
Born in this mountainous setting of Scottish parents, John 
Hanson McNeill grew to be a mild-tempered, industrious 
farmer. 8 After marrying Jemima Cunningham in 1837, John 
took his wife to Kentucky and later to Missouri where the 
couple acquired a 300-acre farm. With the start of the Civil 
War, pro-Confederate Governor Claiborne F. Jackson of Mis- 
souri commissioned John McNeill to raise a militia company 
and to joint General Sterling Price's outfit. 9 

During the following months McNeill and his sons fought 
with Price in the battles of Carthage, Wilson's Creek, and Lex- 

"Ibid., pp. 85-113. 
'Ibid., p. 135. 

'John B. Fay, Capture of Generals Crook and Kelley by the McNeill Rangers 
(Cumberland, 1893), p. 1. 

8 Simeon Miller Bright, "The McNeill Rangers: A Study In Confederate 
Guerrilla Warfare" (Unpublished Master's Thesis, West Virginia University, 
1950), pp. 6-8. 

• Ibid., pp. 10, 11; W. D. Vandiver, "Two Forgotten Heroes, John Hanson 
McNeill and His Son Jesse," Missouri Historical Review, XXI (April, 1927), 
p. 406. 



ington. In the latter engagement John McNeill was wounded, 
and his son George was killed. After the battle John and an- 
other son, Jesse, remained behind the front lines resting with 
friends in Boone County, Missouri. Here they were captured 
by a Union horse guard and imprisoned in St. Louis. Soon 
Jesse escaped and made his way to Hardy County, West Vir- 
ginia; his father followed shortly thereafter. 10 

After a month of inactivity the grim but mended warrior, 
dressed in a worn Confederate uniform and with dark whis- 
kers extending almost down to his waist, decided to organize 
a guerrilla outfit to operate out of Moorefield. 11 John took the 
higher rank of captain and Jesse, a raw, unmanageable youth, 
served as lieutenant. Although the Federal troops referred to 
McNeill's Rangers and other similar groups as "bushwhack- 
ers," they were actually organized under the Ranger Act passed 
by the Confederate Congress in Richmond, Virginia. These 
partisan rangers were set up to cooperate with southern armies 
but to be independent in command. 12 

During the course of the war there were 210 names on the 
McNeill roster of which no more than two thirds were active 
at any one time. 13 These adventurers furnished their own 
arms and clothing, most of which were captured from the en- 
emy. Many Rangers wore parts or all of the blue uniform of 
the Union soldier throughout their service. The partisans 
never stayed for more than one or two nights in any one loca- 
tion. Ravines, ridges, and gorges in the familiar mountains 
served as their homes. The men usually did not build fires 
which the enemy might spot. Of necessity the Rangers raided 
small Federal camps at mealtime in order to drive the soldiers 
from their camp and acquire small amounts of hard tack, 
corned beef, and coffee. 14 

The life of the guerrilla fighter did not appeal to many, but 
there were other factors to be considered. Loyalty to the Con- 
federate cause or personal admiration for Captain McNeill 

"Ibid., pp. 405, 406; Bright, "McNeill Rangers," 10-13. 
"Vandiver, "Two Forgotten Heroes," p. 404. 

13 Bright, "McNeill Rangers," pp. 15, 16; J. W. Duffey, McNeill's Last Charge 
(Moorefield, 1944), pp. 24, 25. 
" Ibid., pp. 24, 25. 

"Bright, "McNeill Rangers," pp. 16, 17; Moorefield Examiner, March 4, 1915. 



was reason enough for many to serve in the Rangers. Others 
sought adventure or a share in the loot of a successful raid. 
Some were just plain ornery and wanted a good fight. Drink- 
ing from a seemingly bottomless well of hard mountain liquor, 
the life of a partisan fighter seemed bearable and even roman- 
tic at times. 15 

The McNeill Rangers carried out their objectives with a 
high degree of success. Of general importance was to create 
havoc among Federal troops in the area. More specifically they 
endeavored to interrupt traffic and communications on the 
Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. The Rangers also served as 
scouts for Confederate forces and were helpful in supplying 
large numbers of beef cattle to their armies in the Shenandoah 
Valley. 19 

The southern partisans built their method of attack around 
the element of surprise. They assaulted their enemy prefer- 
ably at daybreak, tried to cripple him before he could grasp 
the situation, and almost always succeeded even when outnum- 
bered two or three to one. 17 The effectiveness of Captain Mc- 
Neill's tactics was illustrated by action that took place near 
Romney, West Virginia. The weird Rebel yell sounded from 
the brush as twenty-three guerrillas attacked a Federal supply 
train guarded by 150 soldiers. The surprised defenders became 
entangled in confusion, and McNeill's men captured twenty- 
seven wagons, seventy-two prisoners, 106 horses, and other val- 
uable equipment. Confederate General Robert E. Lee stated 
that "this is the third feat of the same character in which 
Captain McNeill had displayed skill and daring." 18 Even 
Union General Philip Sheridan called McNeill "the most 
daring and dangerous of all bushwhackers." 19 

In other engagements the Rangers were equally successful. 
The partisans captured the city of Romney from the Federals 

1S Ibid. 

" Bright, "McNeill Rangers," p. 1 8. 

"J. W. Duffey, Two Generals Kidnapped (Moorefield, 1944), p. 6. 
18 War of the Rebellion, Official Records of the Union and Confederate 
Armies, Vol. XXV, Part II (Washington, 1881-1900), pp. 642, 643. 
" Ambler, West Virginia, p. 228; Duffey, Two Generals Kidnapped, p. 4. 



several times and held it for short periods of time. 20 The Balti- 
more and Ohio Railroad was idle on numerous occasions in 
McNeill's country while repairs were made on tracks and cul- 
verts that had been destroyed by the Rangers. 21 Southern esti- 
mates claim that during the war over 25,000 Federal troops 
were diverted from the battlefront to guard the railroad against 
the Rangers. 22 

General Benjamin F. Kelley, at one time commander of 
Federal forces in the Department of West Virginia, proclaimed 
in a frustrated and fiery manner, "I want McNeill killed, cap- 
tured, or driven out of this valley." 23 On another occasion 
General Kelley advised that, "McNeill crossed the river below 
Oldtown and robbed several stores at that place last night. 
. . . You must keep yourself fully posted in regard to Mc- 
Neill's movements, or your command will be all gobbled up 
some of these fine mornings." 24 These prophetic words were 
realized a little over a year later when Generals Crook and 
Kelley were "all gobbled up" by partisans under the leader- 
ship of Lieutenant Jesse McNeill, serving in his deceased 
father's capacity as leader of the Rangers. 

The tragic death of Captain McNeill occurred in October, 
1864 shortly after he had led a raid on a Federal company 
guarding a bridge near Mount Jackson, Virginia. In the en- 
suing battle one of his own men accidentally wounded Captain 
McNeill. The injury was inflicted under circumstances similar 
to those which occurred when General "Stonewall" Jackson, 
his hero, was killed. On the battle scene the mortally wounded 
Captain told his twenty-three year old, daredevil son to "take 
command and show yourself a man." 25 The Rangers did not 
disperse after Captain McNeill's death, but instead they rose 
to great heights with the raid on Cumberland in early 1865. 

ao Official Records, XLIII, Part I, pp. 726, 956; Ibid., XXXIII, p. 1067; 
Hu Maxwell and H. L. Swisher, History of Hampshire County (Morgantown, 
1897), p. 551; Morris Purdy Shawkey, West Virginia In History, Life, Literature, 
and Industry, II (Chicago, 1928), p. 161. 

21 Festus Paul Summers, "The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad: A Study in The 
Civil War" (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, West Virginia University, 
1933), pp. 207, 208; Official Records, XXXVII, Part I, p. 69. 

M Duffey, McNeill's Last Charge, pp. 4, 5. 

" Official Records, XXXVII, Part I, pp. 522, 523. 

"Ibid., XXXVII, Part II, pp. 517, 518. 

85 Duffey, McNeill's Last Charge, p. 3; Vandiver, "Two Forgotten Heroes," 
p. 409. 



Rather than serve under the command of the young lieutenant 
several men did leave the Rangers to join Blake Woodson's 
Company, another band of Confederates operating in the area; 
but the strength of McNeill's men was not weakened appre- 
ciably. 26 

The Rangers continued to raid in West Virginia by dis- 
rupting local elections and by destroying railroad tracks and 
equipment. 27 In Cumberland General Kelley was determined 
to destroy the Rangers. He proclaimed to the citizens of the 
South Branch Valley that if they continued to harbor and feed 
McNeill's men "the whole valley will be laid waste like the 
Shenandoah Valley." Colonel R. E. Fleming and fifty cavalry- 
men attempted to "capture, destroy, or otherwise annihilate 
McNeill," but to no avail. 28 

In December, 1864, the Confederate Government revoked 
the charter of the McNeill Rangers. Southern officials ordered 
the partisans to join Gilmor's Company located in that area 
in an attempt to consolidate their efforts. Most of McNeill's 
men refused; as a result they became legally the "bushwhack- 
ers" that the Federals claimed they had been all during the 
war. 29 

Adding to the troubles of the Rangers at this time was the 
fact that Jesse McNeill fractured his ankle, forcing a period 
of confinement on the otherwise active lad. He spent several 
weeks convalescing near Moorefield in the home of his friend, 
Felix Welton. Here Jesse planned an attack on Cumberland 
to capture Generals Kelley and Crook. 30 The reason that he 
aimed the attack at Crook and Kelley is not certain. Perhaps 
it stemmed from an old plan Jesse's father had made to revenge 
an uncourteous act by General Kelley to Mrs. McNeill. 31 Or 

" Official Records, XLIII, Part I, pp. 652-653. 
"Ibid., XLIII, Part II, pp. 522, 542. 

'"Ibid., XLIII, Part I, pp. 662, 663, 667, 669; Vandiver, "Two Forgotten 
Heroes," p. 412. 
"Officia Records, LI, Part II, p. 1061. 
!0 Cumberland Daily News, April 20, 1946. 

!1 Mrs. McNeill was in Ohio during the early part of the war and wished 
to visit her husband in Moorefield. General Kelley refused to issue her a 
passport; but instead ordered her arrested and kept in Ohio. Mrs. McNeill 
eventually made her way to Moorefield without the benefit of a passport but 
John McNeill never forgot the incident. William H. Lowdermilk, History of 
Cumberland (Washington, 1878), p. 420; Vandiver, "Two Forgotten Heroes," 
p. 413. 



perhaps Jesse planned it in retaliation for the bad treatment 
that he claimed the Federals gave to two of his Rangers when 
they captured and confined them to Cumberland. 32 

First, Jesse sent Ranger John Lynn back to his hometown 
of Cumberland to study the Union defenses and to ascertain 
the feasibility of his plan. Shortly thereafter the Federals cap- 
tured Lynn in Cumberland, and two other partisans went in 
his place. Scout John B. Fay, a native of Cumberland, knew 
the city well. He chose as his companion scout, Charles Ritchie 
Hallar, a sixteen year old Missourian. The two entered the 
city in early February, 1865. Soon they learned the number 
and position of the picket posts, the exact location of Generals 
Crook's and Kelley's apartments, and reported back to Mc- 
Neill. 33 They decided upon a tentative date for the raid and 
agreed that the two scouts would again enter Cumberland prior 
to the date set for the raid to see if the Federals had made any 
changes that would affect their plans. 84 

On their final reconnaissance Fay and Hallar double-checked 
their information and received additional news of conditions 
in the city from George Stanton, an Irish secessionist and em- 
ployee of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad in Cumberland. 35 
Then they hastened through the bitter cold morning of Feb- 
ruary 21 to the home of their bachelor friend, Vance Herriott, 
where they had a warm breakfast. Here, twenty miles from 
Cumberland, young Hallar prepared to take the favorable 
information to McNeill's camp thirty miles to the west. Fight- 
ing a blinding snowstorm, the scout finally reached Jesse's 
camp just north of Moorefield. McNeill was awaiting Hallar 
with forty-eight Rangers and fifteen other Confederate sol- 
diers who had strayed from the Seventh and Eleventh Virginia 
cavalry brigades of General Thomas L. Rosser. The horses 
were fed and watered and the sixty-four cavalrymen prepared 
for their long and hazardous ride into enemy territory. The 

"Virgil Canington Jones, Gray Ghosts and Rebel Raiders (New York, 
1956), p. 356. 

w T. J. C. Williams and James W. Thomas, History of Allegany County, 
Maryland ([Cumberland?], 1923), p. 389. 
** Lowdermilk, History of Cumberland, p. 421. 

"J. Thomas Scharf, History of Western Maryland (Philadelphia, 1882), 
pp. 296, 297. 



cavalry struggled through the cold and arrived at Herriott's 
by sunset. Fay greeted his friends warmly. Now only twenty 
miles from Cumberland, the men were anxious to complete 
the raid. 36 

Unsuspecting of the Rangers' plans, Generals Crook and 
Kelley continued their normal duties in Cumberland. Mili- 
tary matters took up much of their time, but the two were 
also engaged in the social whirl of the city. General Kelley 
enjoyed the company of the beautiful and talented Mary Clara 
Bruce, who was recognized as the future Mrs. Kelley. Miss 
Bruce sang at a local theatre, entertaining the homesick sol- 
diers and weary townsmen. It was possible that two future 
presidents of the United States were among her theater ad- 
mirers. Brigadier General James A. Garfield and Major Wil- 
liam McKinley of Crook's staff were present in the city during 
the latter stages of the war. 37 

General Crook had met and perhaps courted the daughter 
of the proprietor of the hotel in which he lived. Young Mary 
Dailey from Oakland, Maryland, must have accompanied the 
General to several military dances and parties. Her brother, 
James Dailey, served as a member of McNeill's group, as they 
approached Cumberland on the frigid night of February 21. 
The city of eight thousand people slept, as did many of the 
Federal troops stationed there. 38 

McNeill and his men moved over the snow-covered ground 
trying to avoid formidable snow drifts. Each man was dressed 
warmly to ward off the intense cold. Through the clear 
night they traveled over the Middle Ridge, across the valley 
to Patterson's Creek, and over the smaller ridges to the base 
of Knobly Mountain. Here the men dismounted and made 
a path for their horses through deep snow drifts. The ascent 
to the top of the mountain was strenuous. Farther on at the 
Sam Brady farm George Stanton again gave a favorable report 
on conditions in the city. 39 From the farm the men forded the 

"'Ibid., p. 297; Duffey, McNeill's Last Charge, p. 21; Bright, "McNeill 
Rangers," pp. 56, 57; Williams, History of Allegany County, p. 389. 
ST Jones, Gray Ghosts, pp. 361, 362. 
88 Williams, History of Allegany County, pp. 389, 390. 

"Duffey, McNeill's Last Charge, p. 21; Bright, "McNeill Rangers," pp. 
57, 58. 



Potomac River leaving West Virginia and entering Maryland. 
When only five miles from Cumberland they had a choice of 
two routes. One was a short cut over New Creek Road which 
was well guarded. The other was the unpicketed National 
Road which entered the city from the west by way of the Nar- 
rows through Wills Mountain. 40 

Since this route was twice as long as the New Creek Road 
and unforeseen delays occurred, the raiders did not have time 
to follow Fay's route through the Narrows and complete the 
raid before daylight. McNeill called a halt to the procession 
and presented several alternatives to Fay's plan. They could 
give up the project and return home, hazard the pickets on 
New Creek Road and attempt to carry out the attack, or put 
off the project and raid the pickets at a railroad station at 
near-by Brady's Mill. 41 McNeill favored the attack at Brady's 
Mill, but the Rangers voted down his proposition almost 
unanimously. Fay blamed McNeill for what he felt were 
several unnecessary delays which made Fay's plan impractical 
and caused bad feeling between the two men. Finally, the 
group reached the decision to risk the pickets on New Creek 
Road and to attempt to carry out the raid on Cumberland. 42 

Since the Rangers could not pass the pickets peacefully 
without the countersign, they would have to overpower them. 
An advance guard of McNeill and Sergeant Joseph Vandiver 
led the way, followed closely by Fay and Sergeant Joseph W. 
Kuykendall. The main body under Lieutenant Isaac Welton 
brought up the rear. The frozen snow crust crackled under 
the weight of the horses' hoofs, as the raiders approached the 
first picket. Time was valuable since there remained only 
one hour and a half before dawn. 

"Halt! Who comes there?" challenged the Federal guard 
by the road. Two other Union guards were huddled around 
a small fire under a temporary shelter about one hundred 
yards from the road. The Rangers came to a halt. The men's 
and horses' warm breath condensed as it contacted the cold 
air which gave it a steamy effect. "Friends from New Creek," 

40 Sylvester Myers, Meyers' History of West Virginia (Wheeling, 1915), I, p. 482. 

41 Ibid., p. 482. 

" Williams, History of Allegany County, p. 890. 



was the response from a Rebel. "Dismount one, come forward 
and give the countersign," instructed the guard. Without a 
word McNeill impulsively put spurs to his horse. Being un- 
able to stop in front of the Union guard, Jesse fired his re- 
volver near the startled picket's face. The other raiders fol- 
lowed quickly and secured the unharmed guard and his two 
comrades. 43 

The Confederates brought the three captured pickets to 
the middle of the road and demanded that they divulge the 
countersign. When the Union soldiers refused, McNeill re- 
alized that immediate action was imperative. First he threat- 
ened each with death, but the men remained silent. Then he 
questioned each man individually but to no avail. Next Mc- 
Neill placed the muzzle of his pistol between the eyes of one 
soldier and prepared to pull the trigger if the desired infor- 
mation was not forthcoming. The man stood petrified in this 
tense moment. Breaking the uneasy silence a Confederate 
suggested that they hang the picket and choke the counter- 
sign out of him. Swiftly a halter was placed around the 
guard's neck and to the relief of all he blurted out in broken 
English, "Bull's Gap."" 

Armed with the countersign the Confederates continued 
along the road, taking the captured pickets with them. Un- 
happy with McNeill's careless reaction of firing his gun and 
perhaps giving them away, the men agreed that Fay and Kuy- 
kendall would lead the advance guard with the understanding 
that there would be no more shooting except in extreme emer- 
gency. Over the next hill and perhaps a mile away the raiders 
came upon a second picket station. Five guards were stationed 
at this post, playing cards around a blazing log fire. As the 
Confederates advanced in the dark, one picket left the card 
game, picked up his musket as he advanced to meet the stran- 
gers, and demanded the countersign. 45 

Kuykendall, stalling for time as several other raiders moved 
up close to the fire, replied that they were cavalry returning 

a Ibid., p. 391; Maxwell, History of Hampshire County, pp. 676, 677; Jones, 
Gray Ghosts, pp. 9, 10. 
"Duffey, Two Generals Kidnapped, p. 10. 
15 Williams, History of Allegany County, p. 391. 



from New Creek. The picket ordered him to dismount and 
give the countersign. It was not needed for now the Union 
soldiers were surrounded and quickly captured. The raiders 
destroyed the pickets' guns and ammunition and left them 
unguarded with instructions to remain there until the troops 

The Rebels moved toward the slumbering city as daylight 
approached. Soon the Confederates could see the lights of the 
city. At the outskirts McNeill called a momentary halt in 
order to appoint two squads of ten men each. Sergeant Kuy- 
kendall headed the squad that would capture General Kelley, 
who lived in the Barnum House. 46 Kuykendall had once been 
a prisoner of Kelley's and therefore knew the General. 47 

The Revere House where General Crook resided was one 
hundred yards down Baltimore Street, the main thoroughfare 
in downtown Cumberland. Sergeant Vandiver headed the 
squad appointed to capture Crook. Sergeant James Dailey, 
the future brother-in-law of General Crook, accompanied Van- 
diver's group, as well as Jacob Gassman, a former clerk at the 
Revere House. Fay, Hallar, and others were delegated to cut 
the telegraph lines in the nearby telegraph office.* 5 

With these assignments the Confederate raiders crossed the 
chain bridge over Wills Creek. Moving at a careless gait, they 
clattered past the Federal horse stables on Baltimore Street. 
Slowly they moved down the main street, some dressed in cap- 
tured Union pants and overcoats, while others wore parts of 
Confederate uniforms. In the dim light one could make little 
distinction between blue and gray. Several raiders whistled 
Yankee tunes, while others exchanged greetings with patrols 
and with people going to work in the predawn hours. The 
head of the column passed the Barnum House and stopped 
in front of the Revere House, with its ranks trailing down 
the street to General Kelley's quarters. 

A lone sentry stood guard in front of each hotel, showing 
no apparent concern to the halting troops which seemed to 

"Duffey, Two Generals Kidnapped, p. 11. 

*' Williams, History of Allegany County, p. 392. 

"Maxwell, History of Hampshire County, pp. 678, 679; Williams, History 
of Allegany County. P. 392. 



be a returning scouting party. Sprigg Lynn, a native of Cum- 
berland, was the first to dismount. Quickly he captured and 
disarmed the sentinel in front of the Barnum House. The 
surprised guard gave directions to General Kelley's room in- 
side the hotel. Lynn, Kuykendall, and John H. Cunningham 
proceeded to the second floor, but by mistake entered the 
room of Kelley's adjutant general, Major Thayer Melvin. When 
asked for the location of Kelley's room, Melvin nervously an- 
swered that it adjoined his. Entering the other room the raid- 
ers quickly awakened the General and told him that he was 
a prisoner. Sleepily Kelley inquired to whom he was surren- 
dering. Kuykendall replied, "to Captain McNeill, by order 
of General Rosser." 49 Silently Kelley and Melvin dressed. Then 
the Rangers led them down the street and ordered each to 
share a horse with a Ranger. 

At the Revere House a similar scene took place. The Rebels 
captured the guard and moved up the stone steps to the hotel 
door, which they found locked. A small Negro boy, George 
Cooper, unlocked the door from the inside, and the men 
pushed in. When they asked the frightened lad if General 
Crook was in the hotel, he replied: "Yes sah, but don't tell 'em 
I told you. What kind o' men is you all, anyhow?" He received 
no reply. 50 

While Vandiver and Dailey obtained a light from an office 
below, Gassman proceeded to Crook's apartment, number 46. 
Thinking the door was locked, he knocked several times. 
"Who's there?" was the response. "A friend," answered Gass- 
man. Crook invited Gassman into his room as Vandiver, 
Dailey, and another Ranger arrived. The four entered and 
moved toward the bed. 

"General Crook, you are my prisoner," Vandiver said in a 
pompous manner. "What authority do you have for this?" 
asked the startled General. "The authority of General Rosser, 
of Fitzhugh Lee's division of cavalry," answered Vandiver. "Is 
General Rosser here?" asked Crook as he rose up in bed. "Yes," 
lied Vandiver, "I am General Rosser. We have surprised and 

"Duffey, Two Generals Kidnapped, p. 11; Williams, History of Allegany 
County, p. 393. 

m Ibid., p. 393; Maxwell, History of Hampshire County, pp. 680, 681. 


captured the town." With this information Crook surrendered 
to his captors. 61 

While the two kidnappings were taking place, Fay and Hal- 
lar entered the telegraph office which adjoined the Revere 
House. There they found the operator, A. T. Brennaman, 
sound asleep. He awoke when the raiders pulled a table from 
under his outstretched legs. Then the two men tied up Bren- 
naman, destroyed the telegraph facilities, and rejoined the 
main group outside the Revere House. Other Confederates 
captured the headquarters' flag and more war booty. 52 

As Crook and his captors reached the sidewalk, a young 
clerk who had been asleep in the hotel rushed outside. Hold- 
ing up his lantern to get a good look, he asked, "How many 
Johnnies have you caught?" Noticing the men's dress, he sud- 
denly realized his mistake. A nearby Rebel grabbed the clerk 
and searched his pockets. Then raider W. H. Maloney yanked 
his coat up over his head and left the dumbfounded boy on 
the sidewalk. 03 

The Confederates quickly retraced their steps, pausing at 
the chain bridge to obtain additional horses from the Federal 
stable for their prisoners. McNeill tried to hurry the men as 
much as possible and became very excited with the delay. 
He ordered Fay to lead them out of the city by the shortest 
route. Moving down the Canal Street Road, the mounted sol- 
diers sighted a dozen or more pickets. Quickly the Rangers 
subdued them and destroyed their arms and ammunition. As 
the raiders galloped off, the helpless Yanks were left standing 
in the road. 

The next obstacle appeared about one mile out of the city, 
where more pickets guarded the canal bridge. Vandiver led 
the group as they approached the post. One Union guard 
shouted to his superior, "Sergeant, shall I fire?" Vandiver in- 
terrupted in an angry voice, "If you do, I will place you un- 
der arrest. This is General Crook's bodyguard, and we have 

"Duffey, Two Generals Kidnapped, p. 11; Maxwell, History of Hampshire 
County, pp. 680, 681; Williams, History of Allegany County, p. 393. 
"Duffey, Two Generals Kidnapped, pp. 12, 13. 

58 Later this youth, John B. Chamber, served the community as a promi- 
nent^merchant and magistrate in nearby Frostburg, Maryland. Ibid., pp. 



no time to waste. The Rebels are coming, and we are going 
out to meet them." 54 The Rangers hastily galloped past the 
startled guards, handily avoiding conflict at the last outpost 
on this route. 

Crossing over the Potomac River the much relieved raiders 
were on West Virginia soil again, putting as much distance as 
possible between themselves and the scene of their astounding 
capture. When the men were four or five miles from Cum- 
berland, they heard a cannon explosion which gave the alarm 
of their raid. Soon the morning sun began to melt the snow, 
making it difficult for the tired horses. 

Riding bareback, General Crook was showing signs of dis- 
tress with the fast pace. Finally, he asked Ranger Maloney to 
ride ahead and secure a saddle. The Ranger replied that he 
did not know where he would find one. The General laughed 
and said /'Take one from the first Yank (you see) and tell him 
General Crook ordered you to take it." 55 Maloney rode ahead 
to Jacob Kyle's farm, where he threatened to burn his house 
down unless he got a saddle. Soon Maloney rejoined the Rang- 
ers, and a grateful Crook welcomed his resourcefulness. 

Onward the Rangers rode, passing through Romney with 
their captured headquarters' flags flying; the citizens were con- 
fused when seeing the mixture of blue and gray uniforms. 
Leaving the city, the raiders chose an obscure road running 
along the south branch of the Potomac. 56 Several miles south 
of Romney two Rangers, Joseph Sherrard and John Poland, 
stopped at the farmhouse of William B. Stump. Later the Fed- 
eral cavalry arrived, wounded Poland, and captured the two 
raiders. These proved to be the only Ranger losses during the 
entire raid. 57 

The raiders had spotted a mounted force of Federals before 
they had entered Romney, and now this group gained on the 
Rangers. The fleeing Rebels raced along one side of the South 
Branch River out of range of the Federal cavalry on the other 
side. McNeill's rear guard held off the Federals for one hour 

"Maxwell, History of Hampshire County, p. 682. 
"Duffey, Two Generals Kidnapped, pp. 12, 13. 

58 Later this youth, John B. Chamber, served the community as a promi- 
"Duffey, Two Generals Kidnapped, p. 16, 


at a strategic point, but the melting snow made the fast pace 
extremely difficult for the Rangers and their tired mounts. 

Having fresh horses, the Yanks gained on the raiders. Mc- 
Neill soon realized that they would be cut off before they 
reached Moorefield, where they had hoped to display their 
booty and prisoners before the hometown folks. Evening was 
starting to settle over the valley when the Rangers were only 
two miles from the city. At that point McNeill led his men 
into the woods and onto a trail which they followed over back 
ridges to a spot seven miles east of Moorefield. Here in a little- 
known gorge in the mountains the men made camp. 58 Feeling 
weary but safe, they reflected happily on the activities of this 
memorable day. They had accomplished the almost impossible 
task of capturing two top-ranking Union generals from a city 
guarded by six to eight thousand Federal forces. During this 
twenty-four hour period, they had ridden over ninety miles 
through mountainous country in intense cold and deep snow 
in the presence of extreme pressure and danger. 

Early the next morning a protective escort of Rangers 
led the prisoners away to Harrisonburg, Virginia. The Federals 
had spent the night in Moorefield and had received reinforce- 
ments from General Sheridan in Winchester, Virginia. The 
next day the prisoners and their escorts completed the 154 
mile trip to the headquarters of General Jubal Early in Staun- 
ton, Virginia, where they were fed adequately and lodged com- 
fortably. The main force of the Rangers remained in the 
mountains for several days after the raid, waiting for the dili- 
gence of the Federal pursuit to wane. 59 

In Cumberland the reaction to the raid was one of aston- 
ishment and mirth. Citizens called it the biggest joke of the 
war. Many speculated as to whether the generals would be re- 
captured. Miss Bruce, General Kelley's intended, appeared on 
a local stage the night after the raid and started to sing her 
first selection, "He Kissed Me When He Left." She was 
interrupted by an inebriated soldier in the audience who 
shouted, "No, 111 be damn if he did . . . McNeill didn't give 

s " Maxwell, History of Hampshire County, p. 683. 

"Duffey, Two Generals Kidnapped, pp. 17, 18; Bright, "McNeill's Rangers," 
p. 69. 



him time." This outburst ended Miss Bruce's performance 
for the night, as she withdrew from the stage. 60 

Most agreed that McNeill's raid was bold and far-reaching. 
General Crook called it "the most brilliant exploit of the war!" 61 
Colonel John Mosby commented in Richmond, Virginia, where 
the two captured generals were imprisoned, that "this surpasses 
anything I have ever done. To get even with you boys, I have 
got to go into Washington and carry Abe Lincoln out." 62 The 
praise was generous but the deed proved of little consequence. 
Confederate officials soon paroled Crook and Kelley; and 
Crook participated in the closing battles of the war at Peters- 
burg, Richmond, and Appomattox. 

After the war many of the personalities that were involved 
in the raid settled in the Allegheny Mountain area. Jesse Mc- 
Neill and many of the raiders acclimated themselves to a more 
peaceful life and lived to celebrate several reunions of the 
Rangers. General Kelley secured a civil service post after the 
war and lived on his farm in the Alleghenies with his wife, 
Mary, until his death in 1891. Major Melvin became a 
distinguished member of the West Virginia bar and a fine 
circuit court judge. 83 Mrs. Mary Dailey Crook spent many of 
her remaining days in western Maryland awaiting the visits 
of her frontier soldier husband who was fighting and negoti- 
ating with the Indians of the Great Plains. They could re- 
member well the lesson in guerrilla warfare that the Gen- 
eral had learned in that area of one of the first American fron- 
tiers—the Allegheny Mountains. 

«• Ibid., pp. 18, 20. 
» 1 Ibid., pp. 18, 19. 

ea Vandiver, "The Forgotten Heroes," p. 418. 

Fay, Capture of Generals Crook and Kelley, p. 6. 


By J. Reaney Kelly 

Following publication of an article "Tulip Hill, Its History 
and Its People" in the December 1965 issue of the Maryland 
Historical Magazine, 1 attempts were made to find the two Sir 
Joshua Reynolds' portraits of Mr. and Mrs. Sylvanus Groves 2 
of London that had hung at Tulip Hill for over one hundred 
years before being sold in 1882. After an unsuccessful search 
in galleries, historical societies, and the Adams Papers in 
Boston and the Frick Art Reference Library in New York, a 
chance inquiry in Washington, D.C., finally led to their dis- 
covery. Now, after eighty-five years, they have not only been 
located but have been returned to Maryland and again hang 
at Tulip Hill where they were sent as a gift soon after the 
house was built in 1756. 

After the sale of the West River estate in 1877 Mrs. Anne 
Sarah Hughes, the last owner by descent from Samuel Galloway 
III, the builder, gave or sold to relatives and friends 3 some of 
the furnishings of her old home. However, when the elderly 
widow moved to Washington, she took with her the two 
Reynolds' portraits and several pieces of fine furniture which 
her father, Virgil Maxcy, had brought to America from 
Europe where he had been charge" d'affaires to Belgium. 4 An 
armoire, escritoire, and the paintings were bought by Mrs. 
Henry Adams, wife of the noted historian, in 1882. Mrs. Adams 
tells an exciting story of the inspection, purchase and the au- 

*J. Reaney Kelly, "Tulip Hill, Its History and Its People," Md. Hist. Mag. 
LX. (December, 1965) 

2 The name appears as Grove in many of the Tulip Hill records. 

"Wallace's Monthly, "The Godolphin Arabian," by the editor, III, IV (May, 
1877), pp. 289-298. MicroBlm at Hall of Records, Annapolis. 

4 Galloway, Maxcy, Markoe Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, 
Vol. 42, fol. 17587. 


Sylvanus (.roves 



thentication of the pictures in her contemporary letters pub- 
lished in 1936. 5 She cried "Eureka" when experts announced 
they were genuine and that Mr. and Mrs. Groves were listed 
as sitters for Sir Joshua in London in August 1755. 

Mrs. Adams described the Reynolds' portraits in a letter 
to a friend in 1882, soon after they were acquired. She wrote: 
"The lady, snub-nosed and pale in pink satin with blue gauze 
scarf and pearl ornaments, hair drawn up over a cushion; Mr. 
Groves stout and handsome in powdered whig, gray brocade 
coat and white neckerchief." Henry Adams is quoted as say- 
ing: "Yes, they are charmingly modelled and very dignified." 
The portraits were also described as being of Kit-Kat size, 
twenty-four by thirty inches. 6 

Tradition in the Galloway family has always been that 
Samuel Galloway and Sylvanus Groves, his factor or London 
representative, arranged to exchange portraits of themselves 
and their wives possibly when the former was in London in 
1755. 7 Galloway and Groves had a successful business relation- 
ship and their families were close friends. When two of Gallo- 
way's sons attended school in London they resided with the 
Groves. 8 Galloway named two of his sailing vessels the Grove, 
one of which was registered as a ship and the other as a 
brigantine. 9 That the Reynolds' portraits were a gift to the 
Galloways and hung at Tulip Hill is well documented. When 
the paintings were registered at the Pennsylvania Academy of 
the Fine Arts, April 3, 1877, it was recorded: "Possessor Mrs. 
A. S. Hughes to whose Great Grand Parents Mr. & Mrs. Sam. 
Galloway these Portraits were sent as a 'Present' and were 
among the first of Sir Joshua Reynolds' paintings to be sent 
to America." 10 A visitor to the West River estate in the Mid- 
19th Century wrote as follows: "On June 26, 1849 we rode to 
Mrs. Maxcy's, widow of Virgil Maxcy— formerly our Minister 

B The Letters of Mrs. Henry Adams 1865-1883, Ward Thorn, ed. (Boston 
1936), pp. 349, 351. Also see Kelly loc. cit, pp. 399-401. 

'Ibid. The name Kit-Kat was first associated with the half-length paintings 
of the members of the noted Kit-Kat Club of London. 

'G.M.M. Papers, loc. cit., Vol. I, fol. 8167. 

8 Ibid., Vol. 3, fol. 8377 and 8425; Vol. 7, fol. 9143; Vol. 9, fol. 9520. 

* Vaughan W. Brown "Shipping in the Port of Annapolis 1748-1775" (U.S. 
Naval Institute, Annapolis), Sea Power Monograph #1, 1965. Also see Maryland 
Gazette, March 22, 1753. 

10 Information on back of portraits. 


to Belgium but who lost his life on the ill-fated warship Prince- 
ton. 11 The house is very old, much of the furniture came from 
Europe, some of it over two hundred years old. Among the 
other treasures they have two portraits by Sir Joshua Rey- 
nolds." 12 

Portraits of Samuel Galloway and Anne Chew Galloway, his 
wife, were painted by John Wollaston about 1753. 13 However, 
they were not sent abroad. They remained at Tulip Hill until 
probably 1877 when the estate was sold, and are now owned 
by Galloway descendants at nearby Cedar Park. 14 A reason why 
these paintings were not sent to London as planned was the 
untimely death of Mrs. Galloway in December 1756. 15 Possibly, 
her husband then decided to keep the only known picture of 
his devoted wife who did not live to see the completion of the 
house that was to have been her new home. 

In the summer of 1966 inquiry at the Corcoran Gallery of 
Art in Washington, D.C., revealed that it had been the custo- 
dian of the two Reynolds' portraits from 1886 to 1895, gift 
of Mr. Henry Adams. According to "Board papers" on Febru- 
ary 4, 1896, "At the request of Mr. Henry Adams the por- 
traits were returned to the owner, Miss Mary Markoe." Another 
notation found in an old register made while the pictures 
were in the gallery reads as follows: "These portraits are 
said by Mr. Henry Adams (donor) to have been painted by 
Sir Joshua Reynolds and were sent as a 'present' to a friend 
in Maryland." 

Identification of Mary Markoe (a neice of Mrs. Hughes) , 
as owner, in 1896, quickly led to locating the portraits in 
the possession of Galloway descendants in Pennsylvania. Find- 
ing them was timely as they were being expertly cleaned and 
restored, and the owners were considering offering the pictures 
for sale. 

This brought to six the number of paintings, now extant, 

11 Kelly, loc. cit., Quakers in the Founding of Anne Arundel County, Mary- 
land (Baltimore, 1963), pp. 390-391. 

"Thomas John Hall, III, The Hall Family of West River (Denton, Md., 
1941), p. 321. 

"John C. Groce "John Wollaston (FL, 1736-1767), A Cosmopolitan Painter 
in the British Colonies," The Art Quarterly (Summer, 1956), p. 138. 
14 Owned by Mr. and Mrs. E. Churchill Murray. 
"Maryland Gazette, December 23, 1756. 



known to have hung at Tulip Hill in the third quarter of 
the 18th Century. In addition to those by Reynolds is the 
portrait of Jane Galloway Shippen by Benjamin West, circa 
1757, which is owned by the Historical Society of Pennsylvania. 
A full size copy is now at Tulip Hill. The Wollaston paintings 
of Samuel and Anne Chew Galloway were probably the first 
to grace the walls of the historic house. Finally, there is the 
picture of Godolphin's Arabian, "in oil and apparently on 
some kind of paper glued to canvas." 16 It is a copy of a painting 
by John Wooton of the famous horse and was brought to West 
River by Galloway in 1755. Mrs. Hughes gave the picture to 
Dr. James H. Murray of nearby Cedar Park in 1877, where it 
still hangs. 

Mr. and Mrs. Lewis R. Andrews, owners of Tulip Hill since 
1948, purchased the Reynolds' portraits in their original 18th 
Century frames late in 1966. Now, 212 years after being painted, 
they have again been given a place of honor, adding both 
beauty and historical authenticity to one of Maryland's finest 

" Wallace's Monthly, III, IV, pp. 287-389. 



By Peter P. Hill 
fluke of timing and a personal mistrust among the overseas 

£\ emissaries of John Adams may have been decisive elements 
in sparking the quasi war with France, 1798-1800. 

The crisis began when Congress learned in April, 1798, that the 
American envoys to Paris had been asked for a "douceur" as a 
prerequisite to treaty-making. 1 These bribe-seeking overtures from 
Talleyrand's agents, Messieurs X, Y and Z, became known to the 
public when the House of Representatives demanded to see the 
diplomatic correspondence. 2 The XYZ despatches, as they were 
called, made exciting reading. The Congress, convinced that 
American honor had been sullied, responded with full-scale prep- 
arations for war. What followed was the period of Franco-Amer- 
ican naval hostilities known as the quasi or naval war with France. 

In retrospect the arrival-time of the despatches would seem to 
have heightened their effect on Congressional reaction. Although 
the American envoys, Charles C. Pinckney, John Marshall and 
Elbridge Gerry, had written as early as October 22, 1797, of their 
first encounter with X, Y and Z, their first despatch had not ar- 

Permission to draw this piece from the author's recently accepted doctoral 
dissertation, "The Political and Diplomatic Career of William Vans Murray, 
1760-1803," has been granted by the Graduate Council of the George Washington 

1 Although it was the French request for bribe money that inflamed public 
opinion, Pinckney and Marshall were primarily put off by the simultaneous 
French demand for a loan. See Stephen G. Kurtz, The Presidency of John Adams 
(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1957), p. 298. For the de- 
spatches see State Papers and Publick Documents of the United States (Boston: 
Thomas B. Wait, 1819), III, 475-499; IV, 1-32. 

* House Republicans, suspecting that the administration had bungled the 
French negotiation, carried a motion on April 2 requesting the correspond- 
ence. Adams submitted the despatches the following day, and on April 6 the 
House voted to publish 1200 copies. See Debates and Proceedings in the Con- 
gress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1834-1856), 5th 
Cong., 2nd Sess., pp. 1357-1363, 1371, 1375, 1380. 



rived in Philadelphia until the evening of March 4, 1798. Four 
more despatches arrived during the next two days. 3 Thus, when 
the House called for the correspondence on April 2, members 
could read the whole story of the envoys' "humiliation" from be- 
ginning to end. The emotional impact was tremendous, and the 
warlike response commensurate. 

Had the despatches from Paris come piecemeal throughout Feb- 
ruary and March, possibly the story of XYZ would have had a 
less exciting effect. President Adams, already chafing at the lag- 
gard attitude of the House toward his preparedness program, 
would almost certainly have leaked the despatches to Congress had 
they arrived earlier. 4 Moreover, that body was fully capable of 
gradations of reaction short of war. Even with the XYZ despatches 
in hand, the Federalist warhawks were unsure enough of public 
support to hold back from an outright war declaration. 5 Had the 
XYZ story been "serialized," i.e., disclosed bit by bit, its effect on 
Congress might not have been so intense. An illustrative precedent 
can be found in the Congressional actions which preceded Jay's 
mission to London in 1794. Here a steady accumulation of griev- 
ances against Britain had led, by stages, from "Madison's Resolu- 
tions" to an embargo and ultimately to proposals for debt seques- 
tration. 6 

Given the possibility of a more gradual and less provocative esca- 
lation of hostility, an interesting question poses itself: Could 
Pinckney, Marshall and Gerry have relayed the news of their Paris 

'Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, Philadelphia, March 5, 1798, to 
William L. Smith, U. S. Minister to Portugal, Instructions to U. S. Ministers, 
IV, National Archives; see also Pickering to Rufus King, U. S. Minister to Great 
Britain, April 26, 1798, ibid. 

4 On six separate occasions during his first year in office Adams urged Con- 
gress to improve the nation's defenses. In addition to complying promptly with 
Congressional requests for information, Adams in at least three instances con- 
veyed materials relating to national defense without being asked. When the 
first batch of XYZ despatches arrived he forwarded one of them (dealing with 
a recent French decree against neutral shipping) within 24 hours. With the 
hook baited, Adams then sent a message to Congress on March 19 in which 
he noted the failure of the Paris mission but made no offer of the corre- 
spondence. When Congress asked for it, however, he again acted within 
24 hours. See James D. Richardson, ed., A Compilation of the Messages and 
Papers of the Presidents (Washington: GPO, c. 1897), I, 228-265, passim. 

6 Charles Francis Adams, ed., Works of John Adams (Boston: Little, Brown 
and Company, 1850-1856), IX, 304-305; Fisher Ames to Oliver Wolcott, Ded- 
ham, Mass., June 8, 1798, George Gibbs, Memoirs of the Administrations of 
Washington and John Adams (New York: William Van Norden, 1846), II, 
51-52; John C. Hamilton, ed., Works of Alexander Hamilton (New York: 
John F. Trow, 1850-1851), VI, 298-299. 

'Debates and Proceedings, 3rd Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 155-156, 442, 529-530, 



encounter any earlier? The answer is yes— had they shown greater 
trust in the Adams Federalist who manned the diplomatic post at 
The Hague. The latter was William Vans Murray, a former three- 
term Congressman from the Maryland Eastern Shore who had 
served as U.S. Minister to the Batavian Republic since June, 
1797. Had the despatches been routed through Murray at The 
Hague, instead of William L. Smith at Lisbon, the first installment 
of XYZ would have arrived February 3, a full month earlier than 
they did. 7 

The readiest explanation of why the envoys chose Lisbon rather 
than The Hague is that communications sent by way of Portugal 
would be less likely to be intercepted by British men-of-war. 8 
Inasmuch as the despatches were written in code, this precaution 
would seem to have been unnecessary. Moreover, if security were 
the reason, why did the envoys not risk the same disclosures to 
Murray that they made to Rufus King? King, our minister in 
London, knew the substance of the XYZ affair as early as Decem- 
ber 23, and was advising the Paris mission not to deal with France 
on the basis of loans and bribes. 9 At The Hague, meanwhile, Mur- 
ray was kept wholly ignorant of what was transpiring. Talley- 
rand's agents had made their overtures on the evening of October 
18. During the next ten days all three of the Paris envoys wrote 
letters to Murray, but not one told him explicitly what was hap- 
pening. 10 Had they done so, Murray's letter to the State Depart- 
ment of November 5 would have brought the news to Philadelphia 
on February 3. Not until mid-January, 1798, did Murray learn 
(possibly from Pinckney) that "the French want a forced loan 

7 Murray to Pickering, No. 21, The Hague, November 5, 1797, Netherlands 
Despatches, I, National Archives, answered by Pickering to Murray, No. 1, 
Philadelphia, February 3, 1798, Instructions to U. S. Ministers, IV. Some 
idea of Pickering's agitation can be seen in his letter to William L. Smith, 
written the day before the first XYZ despatch arrived. Pickering wrote: "We 
have not received one line from our Envoys since they left Holland! almost 
six months agol ... we must conclude that they have sufficient inducements 
to stay. But why not write? Or are all their letters and messengers inter- 
cepted? The latest from Mr. Murray is only down to Nov. 5." No. 3, Phila- 
delphia, March 3, 1798, ibid. 

8 Rufus King, for example, warned the envoys that France was delaying the 
departure of American vessels from French ports. King to the U. S. Commis- 
sioners, London, December 9, 1797, Charles R. King, ed., The Life and Cor- 
respondence of Rufus King (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1894-1900), 
II, 248. 

" Same to same, London, December 23, 1797, ibid., pp. 262-263. 

10 Marshall to Murray, Paris, October 21, 1797, attached to Murray's No. 
16 to Pickering, The Hague, October 28, 1797, Netherlands Despatches, I; 
reference to letters from Pinckney and Gerry in Murray s No. 21 to Pick- 
eting, op. cit. 



from the United States." Not until May 28 (1) did he learn the 
whole story from Rufus King. 11 

The envoys' neglect of The Hague as a channel of communi- 
cations is, of course, susceptible to other explanations. They may 
have minimized the need for haste or under-estimated the slow- 
ness of the Lisbon route. Such miscalculations might be laid to 
the diplomatic inexperience of Marshall and Gerry, but Charles 
Cotesworth Pinckney, who had been in Europe nearly a year, 
should have known better. 

Distrust of Murray, therefore, would seem to explain the envoys' 
failure to use his services. Because the despatches were coded, they 
were safe from British detection— safer certainly than the uncoded 
letters that went to Rufus King. Moreover, The Hague was well 
known to be one of the swiftest routes for transmitting communi- 
cations to Philadelphia. 12 Why, at least, weren't duplicate copies 
of the despatches sent via The Hague? Was it because Murray 
might have expected a disclosure of their contents— an expectation 
which the envoys, out of courtesy to a fellow diplomat, might have 
felt they could not refuse? Or was it because Murray had a key to 
Pinckney's "cipher" and might have learned their contents for him- 
self? These questions are unanswerable, but they point to distrust. 

If, as appears likely, Murray was deliberately kept uninformed, 
the envoys' reason was probably partisan. During his Congressional 
career the Marylander had only occasionally been privy to the 
inner circle of Federalist policy-shapers. 13 While usually loyal 
to party measures, Murray had never hesitated to cross the party 
line whenever his conscience or his broader view of the national 
interest lay on the other side. His occasional irregularity as a Fed- 
eralist Congressman plus his outspoken campaigning for John 
Adams in 1796 (at a time when some Hamiltonians were working 
for the election of Thomas Pinckney) had, in short, put him on 
the outer fringes of the Federalist establishment. In an era when 
the slightest deviation from the party line did not go unnoticed, 
and a Congressman's aye or nay in roll call was often the test of 
his "soundness," William Vans Murray might well have been 

31 Murray to John Quincy Adams, The Hague, May 29, 1798, Worthington 
Chauncy Ford, ed., "Letters of William Vans Murray to John Quincy Adams, 
1797-1803," Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the 
Year 1912 (Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1914), pp. 410-411. 

"Closer to Philadelphia in sailing time than either Paris or Berlin and 
more central to the major European capitals than either Madrid or Lisbon, 
the American legation at The Hague was rivaled only by its counterpart in 
London as a point from which intelligence could be transmitted quickly. 

"Hill, "Political and Diplomatic Career of William Vans Murray," Ch. 
4-13, passim. 



viewed from Paris as a security risk. He obviously had little rap- 
port with Elbridge Gerry who, to his disgust, was too willing to 
believe the best of the French Directory. 14 But neither did he 
appear to have the confidence of Pinckney and Marshall. 15 The 
silence from Paris, therefore, might be taken as a measure of what 
Murray's colleagues believed to be his political untrustworthiness. 

In sum, a procedural oversight or, more likely, a crisis of confi- 
dence caused a month's delay in the news of XYZ reaching Phila- 
delphia. What this delay might have signified in terms of Con- 
gressional reaction remains one of the imponderables of the period. 

"Murray to JQA, The Hague, October 1, 1797, AHA Report of 1912, p. 
362; Gerry to Murray, Paris, October 9, 1797, Misc. Letters, Murray MSS, 
Library of Congress. 

15 Later, for example, on learning that Marshall had opposed the Alien and 
Sedition acts, Murray recalled that Marshall's credentials as a Federalist had 
never been impressive. He also remembered that Pinckney, while at The Hague 
between missions, had often differed with him "on some points of federal 
doctrines." Murray to JQA, The Hague, March 22, 1799, AHA Report of 
1912, p. 530. 


The Prose Works of William Byrd of Westover. Edited by Louis 
B. Wright. Cambridge: the Belknap Press of Harvard University 
Press, 1966. viii, 438. $9.75. 

For those of us who went to college before the Second World 
War, back in the days when the academic literati deigned to teach 
survey courses in American Literature, the name of William Byrd 
of Westover and the excerpts from the History of the Dividing Line 
and A Progress to the Mines which we read, evoke memories of a 
green and pleasant oasis in the desert of dry New England worthies 
otherwise relieved only by Thomas Morton of Merrymount. For 
those who have suffered through and even some of those who teach 
required English courses in these latter and not necessarily better 
days of die genre approach, Byrd is all too often unknown. That 
is a pity, for William Byrd of Westover was an urbane gentleman 
of affairs, a gentleman at home in the company of the great in 
London and equally at home beyond the frontier in the Virginia 
of the 1720's. 

Although Byrd wrote as if to entertain his friends, he was too 
much of a perfectionist to send his pieces to the printer, and al- 
though the existence of the manuscripts was known and parts read 
by various people, including Thomas Jefferson, the longest of the 
four works in the present volume, the History of the Dividing Line, 
was not printed until Edmund Ruffin brought out an edition in 
1841. Thomas Hicks Wynne brought out a more carefully copied 
edition in 1866. In 1901 John Spencer Bassett and in 1929 William 
K. Boyd published new editions based on the Wynne text. In 1929 
Mark Van Doren edited an edition based on the Ruffin text. All 
of these editions were based directly or indirectly on the manuscript 
then at Westover and now in the Library of the Virginia Historical 
Society. There is another manuscript of the work in the Library of 
the American Philosophical Society with slight variations from the 
Westover manuscript. The present edition seems to be the first 
one in which the two versions are collated. 

This book also contains the second printing of the Secret History 
of the Dividing Line. This work, in which Byrd gave the members 
of the surveying party fictitious names, and then had fun with a 
gently satiric account of their foibles and mishaps, was printed by 
Boyd along with the longer work in 1929. It is based on a manu- 
script in the American Philosophical Society Library. 




The other two pieces in this book, A Progress to the Mines and 
A Journey to the Land of Eden, have also appeared before, most 
recently in somewhat condensed form as addenda to The London 
Diary 1717-1721 edited by Dr. Wright and Mrs. Marion Tinling 
and published in 1958. 

Although Byrd's place in literature will probably be determined 
mainly by his Diaries, written in a private shorthand and for no eyes 
but his own, and transcribed by Mrs. Tinling and edited by Dr. 
Wright and Professor Maude H. Woodfin (1941, 1942, and 1958) , the 
material in this book can stand on its own. Byrd's account of the 
surveying of the line between Virginia and North Carolina is 
interesting description of virgin territory, and his comments on 
people are useful social history and amusing in their own right. 
Byrd was a keen observer, interested in everything, and he wrote 
about both what he saw and what he thought about it in an easy, 
pleasant style. 

Dr, Wright has provided a useful introduction, "William Byrd 
as a Man of Letters." There is an interesting Appendix, "Notes on 
the Text and Provenance of the Byrd Manuscripts" by Kathleen 
L. Leonard. The book is well made with an inclusive index and a 
pleasant absence of typographical errors. The only error this re- 
viewer could find is that "Berkeley" in the note on p. 51 should be 
spelled "Berkley," and the only reason the reviewer knows it is 
that he is married to the granddaughter of Lycurgus Berkley for 
whom the area is named. 

In conclusion, there are books which must be read by students 
of colonial history and American literature. And there are also 
books which are fun to read. Here we have the definitive edition 
of a work which is, as Edward Gibbon would put it, "instructive 
and amusing." 

John Carter Matthews 

Towson State College 

Here Come The Rebels'. By Wilbur Sturtevant Nye. Baton 
Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1965. xvi, 412. $7.95 

The Gettysburg campaign has received extensive treatment by 
historians, but in Here Come the Rebels! the reader is surprisingly 
rewarded with a new approach to an old subject. This study de- 
scribes the movements of Ewell's corps as it moved towards Gettys- 
burg and northern public reaction to this advance. 

A northern invasion offered several attractive considerations to 
Lee in June, 1863. Pennsylvania would easily provide a source of 
needed food and forage, while the destruction of communication 



lines would prove disruptive to the Union. Tactical and strategic 
reasons also dictated the necessity of a major decision. In the 
preparation for the campaign, Lee reorganized his army and divided 
it into three corps. In this undertaking Nye feels that Lee's ad- 
ministrative ability and accomplishments have been neglected by 
historians and deserve more praise and consideration. 

Northern intelligence failed badly to determine Lee's intentions 
following Chancellorsville. The author is especially critical of 
General Pleasonton, commander of the Union cavalry, for failing 
to perform as directed and to provide Hooker with needed informa- 
tion. Federal authorities merely believed that a large cavalry raid 
was under preparation, while Pennsylvania officials, reacting to 
military operations in West Virginia, at first believed that Pittsburgh 
was to be threatened. Governor Curtin soon became alarmed that 
Harrisburg was the intended objective and called upon Washington 
for aid. The ensuing dialogue between state and federal authorities 
reveals an interesting complexity of political considerations. 

Nye's treatment of Ewell's corps as it moved northward will 
delight the student of military operations. The capture of Win- 
chester is presented as a model movement, while many of the lesser 
battles and cavalry skirmishes have been rescued from relative ob- 
scurity. His treatment of such engagements as Stephenson's Depot, 
Aldie, and Upperville give a greater dimension to the campaign. 

Col. Nye, a former chief of the Army's Historical Division in 
Europe, has managed to blend his past military career and academic 
training into a book remarkable for its insights, military details, 
and judgments. Among the controversial matters, that he re- 
examines, is Hooker's plan to attack Richmond in case Lee at- 
tempted an invasion of the North. Nye feels, contrary to Hooker's 
critics, that the Lee-Davis dispatches justify the plan and would 
have forced Lee to give up his expedition. Not all historians will 
agree with his judgments, but they make for a provocative book. 

Marylanders will be somewhat chagrined that more material 
was not included on their state's reaction in the crisis, and a reader 
may well also feel a regret that Nye did not complete the story by 
describing Lee's masterful retreat back into Virginia. Col. Nye's 
mastery of detail leads him at times to include extraneous matters 
which detract from his narrative. Despite these minor criticisms, 
the author's blend of scholarship, judgment, and literary style make 
this book an excellent addition to Civil War literature. 

Richard R. Duncan 

University of Richmond 



The Prisoners of Algiers: An Account of the Forgotten Ameri- 
can-Algerian War. 1785-1797. By H. G. Barnby. London, England: 
Oxford University Press, 1966. pp. 318. §7.50 

H. G. Barnby's book opens in the year 1785 with America just 
two short years removed from the Peace of Paris ending the Ameri- 
can Revolution. No doubt the popular slogan of 1797, "Millions 
for defense but not one cent for tribute" personified the rage of a 
bumptious but diplomatically impotent nation apprized of the 
seizure of American Nationals by Barbary Coast Pirates. Barnby's 
work is, therefore, a history of the perils, the futility, and frustra- 
tions of negotiating out of weakness. It also provides a new insight 
into the diplomacy under the Articles of Confederation. His work 
seems to give further evidence, from the point of view of foreign 
affairs, to the pleas of such Nationalists as Hamilton, Jay, and 
Madison for a strong central government. 

The sailors who fell into Algerian hands in 1 785 became prisoners 
not so much because of a powerful and tyrannical Dey of Algiers, 
but from circumstance. Barnby's account of the lives of these un- 
fortunate captives is largely seen through the eyes of one James 
Cathcart, himself a precocious and self-seeking prisoner of the Dey. 
Through the use of the Cathcart papers and numerous French and 
British diplomatic sources, the author has pieced together a first- 
rate account of the social, political and chiefly, the new financial 
life of Algiers in the 18th Century. 

Barnby points to the fact that none of the American diplomats 
entrusted with the mission of redeeming hostages had the slightest 
notion of the sometimes irrational but always money-lusting genius 
of the Dey. The difficulty and, of course, the tragedy of the 
American seamen who became slaves in Algiers was that three 
secretaries of state and numerous ambassadors had no conception 
and even less understanding of Algerian affairs. The man who 
finally cut the gordian knot of eleven years of captivity and numer- 
ous unsuccessful attempts to negotiate was the poet and Connecticut 
wit, Joel Barlow. 

Barlow, as minister ex-officio, ingratiated himself with the Jewish 
banking community and through it, made important financial 
contacts, chiefly with the House of Baring, the powerful London 
investment banking firm. Barlow vigorously pursued a financial 
settlement with Algiers unlike some of his ambassadorial predeces- 

In order not to be overly harsh to the seven ambassadors and 



three secretaries of state who attempted to redeem the captured 
Americans, Barnby indicates that communication hampered suc- 
cessful diplomatic overtures. He states that the "administration in 
Philadelphia was completely out of touch with the whole Algerian 
affair." Thus, when anything vital occurred, it was dead news by 
the time it reached Philadelphia. This only accentuated the con- 
fusion of the Algerian tangle. Attempts by the Articles of Con- 
federation Government to encourage the major European powers 
to intervene on its behalf were hopelessly wrecked by America's 
feeble, post-revolutionary diplomatic status. The British naturally 
would not take America's part so soon after 1783. The French were 
uninterested once the Americans gained independence and no 
longer fought England. 

With an ever insistent cry in the United States today for the 
country to negotiate with her enemies, H. G. Barnby's book may 
have a measure of modern relativity. Negotiations from a position 
of strength can alone prove a satisfactory situation for a National 
State in troubled times. 

L. D. Geller 

Madison College 

Early Nantucket and Its Whaling Houses. By Henry Chandlee 
Forman. New York: Hastings House, 1966. ix, 291. $12.50. 

This profusely illustrated book is in two parts, the first few chap- 
ters telling of folk lore and history, the later chapters of architecture. 
The first part is delightful in a slightly haphazard way, the glean- 
ings of a long time summer visitor. The second part is a techni- 
cal analysis, the result of eleven years of application. The author's 
experience, patience and travel blend into that particular style 
all his own. The photographs running from 1860 to 1960 are 
valuable, but not so much so as the inimitable free-hand plans, 
profiles and sketches, carefully measured and dated as to period. 
Town plats and derivations, or phases, of house enlargements are 
also ingenious. 

It is understandable how one could love a house or an area of 
Nantucket, but to completely survey fifty houses is phenomenal, 
collecting measurements, changes, court records, and making the 
drawings. Since Dr. Forman has been an archeologist, a teacher of 
art, an architect in the style of the early American, and a lifelong 
summer resident, his background of lore is pervasive as the salt 
wind and fog that weather the shingles. 



If an aura of glamour had glossed over the hardships, he tells 
us just how rugged it once was, for he grew up with the legend. 

If the Quakers come in for special mention, it is of their time 
that Dr. Forman writes, and their faults as well as their homespun 
virtues are confessed. The find of many photographic plates in an 
attic contributes to the folk history, and may have inspired the 
opening chapters. His review of past periods increases interest in 
building methods. The complete analysis of everything standing in 
'Sconset, and some no longer there, arouses admiration for his 

It is here that the casual tourist's interest will lag, and that of 
the trained architect will be aroused. Special trips to Wales and 
parts of England confirmed the author's belief that these houses 
were a continuation even from the Saxon "wattle and daub." His 
use of Welsh names such as "baulk" and "crog-loft" seems a bit 
narrow; poor men might have used their materials to best advant- 
age in the same way in Cape Breton or Tennessee, and such houses 
as survived in Wales might have been universal in Northern 
Europe. In Nash's "Mansions of England in the Ancient Time" 
the Great Hall (hangover Saxon) has first a rood screen, then the 
lord's chambers, then the musicians' gallery above, even before a 
chimney. Calling a room eleven feet square the Great Room is 
fascinating, but one wonders whether the builders used that term. 
Use of such words as "wart" and "out-shut" and hangover "medie- 
val" are familiar to those who have enjoyed his books; with the 
free-hand elevations and plans they form the mystique of his style. 
A primitive supply produced a culture, which at first could not 
have differed from the fish-flakes and huts of Cape Breton or else- 
where. The use of wooden shakes and shingles was by that time 
rare in Britain, but is still found in Scandinavia, Switzerland, the 
Black Forest or Poland, a style developed from the building 
materials available. 

The mainstream of architecture in Nantucket town is bypassed 
except for a few houses prefabricated on the mainland, marked 
with Roman numerals for convenience, indicating dearth of wood. 
The term Whale House means first of a type in this instance, for 
even in early days most of their catch must have been cod, mackerel 
and such. The lucrative whaling that redeemed these houses is 
not mentioned in the book, nor does the author trace transition of 
ownership from fishermen to summer residents. He mentions that 
the floor plan was added to at first in a set plan, and that 'Sconset 
is the oldest summer resort in America. The engraving of 1791 
entitles it a "fishing village" only; whalers had begun building 


larger vessels than sloops, which had escaped taxation in Colonial 
days. The greatest wealth came in between 1820 and 1840. The 
schematic chart of Phases implies that fishermen enlarged their 
bedrooms when whale houses became family homes in the latter 
part of the 1 8th Century. 

Phase III in early 19th Century shows much larger kitchens at 
the North end of each, together with nostalgic names hinting at 
summer occupancy by Nantucket town people. Summer residence 
by the author's family indicates that they only in 1910 found 
Nauma in 'Sconset a suitable summer home. 

This reviewer has read of shore whaling in light pulling boats 
with snubbing post and swivelled harpoon line by the Madeirans 
today, and it was so described by Pliny in Roman times. From 
them the Dutch and English learned, after shaking off the Spanish 
yoke, and took their whaling ships to Spitsbergen in the 17th 
Century. Japanese prints show shore operations about that time, 
with equipment as primitive as the American Indians. Even in 
Colonial days the intercourse of trade was not confined to any one 
country, and in 1746 an old sailor, Nathan Wilbur, designed a 
windmill after a Dutch fashion. 

Mistakes in the book are few, some of them in the format. There 
are twelve consecutive pages without numbers, which mars the use 
of the Index and Footnotes, if one must keep two fingers between 
the pages. Following the many additions through a maze of draw- 
ings is as quaint as a ramble through Nantucket itself. Pictures 
have been shunted to pages other than indicated. Minor errors 
are gunwhale for gunwale, and sprit for spritsail. 

The thing commemorated is the survival of this full-grown little 
village "Sconset," presumably due to its use as a summer resort by 
wealthy owners of whale ships, and later by "off-island" people like 
the author's family. We reread the folk-lore chapters to renew our 
acquaintance with names met in the foot-notes. We are fortunate 
in having such a faithful and detailed account of Early Nantucket 
and Its Whaling Houses. 

R. Hammond Gibson 

Eastern Maryland 

The Lower Cape Fear in Colonial Days. By Lawrence Lee. Chapel 
Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1965. xiii, 334. $6. 

The Lower Cape Fear In Colonial Days is a scholarly but most 
readable account of the history of southeastern North Carolina. 
As the title indicates, Professor Lee has written a history of a 


region— a parochial history. Yet for a local history it is not com- 
pletely narrow in scope. Professor Lee has often explained local 
events in the light of contemporary events elsewhere, and thus 
has related the character of the area to the broad context of the 
general history of the times. 

Here is a careful presentation of local narrative history from the 
early days of exploration to the end of the American Revolution. 
The story is told of the region's place in the British colonial system 
and also of the people who conquered and developed southeastern 
North Carolina. The author is really at his best when dealing with 
people and their activities; at least such chapters were the most 
readable and enjoyable. 

Professor Lee seems somewhat inclined to repetition, yet there 
is little to criticize in the presentation of the narrative. Unlike many 
local histories, The Lower Cape Fear in Colonial Days is well-bal- 
anced, the main narrative is neither pushed aside by a national 
theme nor lost in poorly organized details. In fact, except for a 
few unanswered questions, this is a local history which could well 
serve as a model for others interested in writing the history of a 
small region within a state. 

William H. Wroten Jr. 

State College 

The Arts in Early American History: Needs and Opportunities for 
Study, An essay by Walter Muir Whitehill; bibliography by 
Wendell D. Garrett and Jane N. Garrett. Chapel Hill: The 
University of North Carolina Press, 1965. Published for the 
Institute of Early American History and Culture at Williamsburg, 
xv, 170. $4.50 

Mr. Whitehill's "Foreword" is delightful, and one wishes that 
others had the taste and knowledge to do as well; the Essay makes 
widespread the interests of such seminars as that which gave rise to 
it. The paragraphs and points make one wish to comment further. 

That Americana is being fitted into a wider field and that the 
concept that "there is nothing new under the sun" is being brought 
to bear on the subject is a relief. "United States Americana" in the 
arts in their widest sense, as well as archaeology and artifacts, is so 
much "the thing" now that it may become emphasized ad absurdum. 
The amount of tangible material in our part of the New World 



(in the various aspects spoken of) in scale, quantity and quality, 
as well as in time and space, is infinitesimal when compared with 
the tangible western past from the 17th century onward. That a 
knowledge of this past, as background and for comparison, is being 
pressed by Dr. Whitehill is most fortunate. His mention of Ameri- 
can landscape should be four-starred, and as uniquely American 
only. Let Mr. Whitehill go on mentioning this— and a lot more. 

The apt phrases of the Garrett and Garrett Bibliography are di- 
verting to one in the field, but far more useful to those well-on than 
"the Young," I think. Cross-filed indices, the perusal of books and 
articles, and picture books produce cumulative manuscripts with 
endless footnotes; but such personnel as they produce are often 
without the "feel" of a people and the things of a particular locale. 
This may result from their having had the misfortune not to have 
handled or organized old collections and records. 

There are many important, interesting and entertaining angles 
to the subject all across the board. Another seminar seems indicated. 

Anna Wells Rutledge 

S. C. Hist. Soc. 

The Myth of the 'New History': The Techniques and Tactics of 
the New Mythologists of American History. By David L. Hoggan. 
Nutley, N.J.: The Craig Press, 1965. vi, 250. $4.50 

The Myth of the New History is an attempt by Professor Hoggan 
to illustrate "that there is a choice to be made between our tried 
and true principles from the past and certain more modern pana- 
ceas." The techniques and tactics of the so-called "New Mythol- 
ogists of American History" are illustrated by accounts of eight 
major military crises— that is, eight major American crises which 
ended in war. The eight examples are (I) The American Revolu- 
tion, (2) The War of 1812, (3) The Mexican War, (4) The Ameri- 
can Civil War, (5) The Spanish American War, (6) The First 
World War, (7) The Second World War, and (8) The Korean War. 

In brief discussions of each major crisis, Professor Hoggan has 
attempted an analysis in light of historical scholarship. He re- 
counts what some American historians have written of war guilt, 
and the people and forces largely responsible for each crisis and 
the war that followed. 

As the author has stated, this is not an exhaustive study but one 



that is tentative and suggestive, with an attempt to present some 
problems o£ values and meanings connected with the writing of 
American history. The study is neither a complete nor unbiased 
evaluation of these crises and historians; but the ideas and opinions 
expressed by the author should be carefully analyzed. The author's 
theses are valuable, at this time, as springboards to a possible 
re-evaluation of scholarship in the writing of American history. 

Although this book seems aimed primarily at the professional 
historian and the serious student, it undoubtedly will prove of 
interest to many amateurs in the field. 

Salisbury State College 

Sword and Firearm Collection of The Society of the Cincinnati. 
By John Brewer Brown. Published by The Society of the Cin- 
cinnati, Washington, District of Columbia, 1965. xiv, 120. ill. 

This 120 page museum catalog is unique. In addition to ex- 
cellent photographic illustrations of each item in the entire col- 
lection by Lowell A. Kenyon, each picture of the weapon is 
accompanied by a complete and accurate technical description 
which puts to shame those appearing in most such works. The latter 
is due to the good fortune of the author in obtaining the assistance 
of Harold L. Peterson, doyen of American sword collectors, as a 
technical advisor, as well as the help of a number of other learned 
consultants, all of whom are listed in the acknowledgements section 
of this splendid little book. 

The most important part of the collection consists of swords 
used by members of the Cincinnati during the American Revolu- 
tion, and each sword presented is accompanied by brief but com- 
plete biographical notes regarding its owner's military career. Of 
particular interest are the swords and exploits of Lieutenant Colonel 
Tench Tilghman and Colonel Nicholas Ruxton Moore, of dis- 
tinguished memory. 

Of value to the casually interested historian as well as the 
scholarly collector, the catalog is a credit to the Society of the 
Cincinnati as well as its author. 

William H. 

Hugh Benet, Jr. 



The Sounds of History, Record 3: 1789-1829, The Growing Years. 
A Supplement to Volume 3 of The Life History of the United 

The editors of Time-Life have enlisted some of the finest music 
and dramatic talent in America in the production of this record. 
Side 1, "Documents," consists of eighteen short selections from 
letters, books, speeches, and poetry by participants in the unfolding 
American drama, from Washington's Farewell Address to Jackson's 
address to the Senate. Frederick March and Florence Elderidge are 
excellent in their interpretations of Jefferson, Abigail Adams, dour 
Timothy Dwight, and spunky Dolly Madison, while Charles 
Collingwood unifies the sections with historical commentary. Un- 
fortunately, most of the passages are taken out of context and are 
far too brief. 

Side 2, "Music," is more limited in scope and more successful. 
Here several outstanding students of the American folk song, in- 
cluding Jean Ritchie, Robert Spiro, and Jane Wilson, present a 
musical sampler of American folk tunes and religious music from 
the Southern Appalachians, the Erie Canal, the New England 
country schools, and the high seas, interspersed with instrumental 
versions of patriotic marches and airs. 

This record should be particularly appealing to the high school 
teacher of American history as supplemental illustrative material, 
and as a welcome change of pace from the textbook. 

Katharine L. Brown 

Johns Hopkins University 


New Revised History of Dorchester County, Maryland. By 
Elias Jones. Cambridge, Md.: Tidewater Publishers, 1966. 
603. $15. 

The Indian Boundary in the Southern Colonies, 1763-1775. By 
Louis De Vorsey, Jr. Chapel Hill: The University of 
North Carolina Press, 1966. xii, 267. $7.50. 

Patrons and Patriotism: The Encouragement of the Fine Arts 
in the United States, 1790-1860. By Lillian B. Miller. 
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1966. xv, 335. 

The History of Jackson County, Missouri, Containing a His- 
tory of the County, Its Cities, Towns, etc. Cape Girardeau, 
Missouri: The Ramfre Press, 1966. xi, 1006. Indexed ed. 

The Academic Mind and Reform: The Influence of Richard 
T. Ely in American Life. By Benjamin G. Rader. Lexing- 
ton: The University of Kentucky Press, 1966. vi, 276. $7.50. 

John P. Holland, 1841-1914: Inventor of the Modern Sub- 
marine. By Richard Knowles Morris. Annapolis: United 
States Naval Institute, 1966. xviii, 211. $8.50. 

Abraham Lincoln, a History. By John G. Nicolay and John 
Hay. (1886-1890, 10 vol.) Abridged and edited by Paul 
M. Angle. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 
1966. xix, 394. $8.50 cloth; $3.45 paper. 

The History of the Conquest of Mexico. By William H. Pres- 
cott. (1843, 3 vol.) Abridged and edited by C. Harvey 
Gardiner. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 
1966. xxvi, 413. Cloth, $8.50; paper, $3.45. 

The History of the United States of America from the Dis- 
covery of the Continent. By George Bancroft. (1876- 
1879, 6 vol.) Abridged and edited by Russel B. Nye. 
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1966. xxvi, 386. 
Cloth, $8.50. 

History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850. By 
James Ford Rhodes. (1907, 5 vols.) Abridged and edited 




by Allan Nevins. Chicago: The University of Chicago 
Press, 1966. xxvi, 576. Cloth, $10; paper, $3.95. 

The Eleventh Pillar. New York State and the Federal Constitu- 
tion. By Linda Grant De Pauw. Ithaca: Cornell Univer- 
sity Press, 1966. Published for the American Historical 
Association, xiv, 328. $6.50. 

Technology in Early America. By Brooke Hindle. With a di- 
rectory of Artifact Collections by Lucius F. Ellsworth. 
Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 
1966. "Needs and Opportunities for Study" series. Pub- 
lished for the Institute of Early American History and 
Culture at Williamsburg, Va. xix, 145. $4.50. 

The Memoirs of John Durang, American Actor, 1785-1816. 
Edited by Alan S. Downer. Pittsburgh: The University 
of Pittsburgh Press, 1966. Published for the Historical 
Society of York County and for the American Society for 
Theatre Research, xix, 176. $7. 

The Amazing Pennsylvania Canals. By William H. Shank. 
York, Pa.: The Historical Society of York County, 1965. 
Illustrated. Paper. 

The Story of Surnames. By L. G. Pine. Rutland, Vermont: 
Charles E. Tuttle Co., Inc., 1966. 152. $4.75. 

The Story of Heraldry. By L. G. Pine. Rutland, Vermont: 
Charles E. Tuttle Co., Inc. 1966. 164. $4.75. 

Forgotten Voices: Dissenting Southerners in an Age of Con- 
formity. Edited by Charles E. Wynes. Baton Rouge: 
Louisiana State University Press, 1967. xi, 138. $4.50. 

Sketches of Virginia, Historical and Biographical. By William 
Henry Foote. Richmond, Va.: John Knox Press, 1966. 
(Reprint). 616. $12.50. 

Old Somerset on the Eastern Shore of Maryland: A Study in 
Foundations and Founders. By Clayton Torrence. Bal- 
timore: Regional Publishing Company, 1966. (Reprint) . 
xvi, 583. $12.50. 

Bookbinding in Colonial Virginia. By Clement Samford and 
John M. Hemphill, II. Williamsburg: Colonial Williams- 
burg, Incorporated, 1966. (Williamsburg Research Series 
#8). xxi, Paper. $4. 

American Maps and Map Makers of the Revolution. By Peter 
J. Guthorn. Monmouth Beach, N. J.: Philip Freneau 
Press, 1966. Illustrated. 48. $6.95. 


Society's War Records Division Commended— The Vermont His- 
torical Society, through its Trustees' meeting on November 11, 1966, 
passed the following resolution: 

Be it resolved: 

That we commend the Maryland Historical Society for its successful 
publication, at the request of the Adjutant General of Maryland and 
with adequate financing in the state budget approved by the 
Governor, of the attractive volumes which preserve for posterity the 
participation of Marylandere in World War Two. And to the Director 
[Harold R. Manakee], War Records Division, Maryland Historical 
Society, we express gratitude for his unstinting help in generously 
preparing the way for Vermont to attempt to match his publication. 

And furthermore we extend to Brigadier General R. M. Cram, Ver- 
mont's acting Adjutant General, a commendation for initiating 
during the last biennium a pilot study for determining the long-range 
problems which require more than intermittent attention if Vermont 
is to bring up-to-date the roster of all our modern Green Mountain 
Boys, by resuming the type of publication last issued by the Military 
Department in 1929 and 1933. We invite him to bring to the attention 
of appropriate legislative and executive authorities the fact that to 
date his appropriations for this purpose amount to less than six 
percent of those that were approved in order to complete the history 
of Maryland in World War Two. And we endorse such continuing 
efforts as will plainly be necessary to achieve publications in our 
tradition of patriotic service ungrudgingly recognized. 

The Baltimore Museum of Art— The Museum is preparing an 
exhibition of Maryland furniture of the Queen Anne and Chippen- 
dale periods. Any information on Queen Anne and Chippendale 
pieces with a Maryland provenance and pieces that can be at- 
tributed to a known cabinetmaker will be most appreciated. The 
cabinet making centers of Annapolis and Baltimore will be em- 
phasized, but attention will also be given to the Eastern Shore 
and Southern Maryland. Please address replies to: William V. Elder, 
Curator of Decorative Arts, The Baltimore Museum of Art, Wyman 
Park, Baltimore, Maryland 21218. 

Boggs Family— \ wish to contact anyone with records of the 
family of John Boggs who married Margaret Key. He came from 
Ireland and settled in Maryland in 1704. Issue: Nancy, James, 




Joseph (RW) , Aaron (RW) , Isbella, Catherine and John. I be- 
lieve that the youngest son, John, was my third great-grandfather, 
John M. Boggs, who married Martha Oliver, daughter of Thomas 
Oliver, and came "from the eastern shores of Md." Issue: Lilburn 
W. Boggs (b. 1796) , fifth Governor of Missouri; Dr. Joseph Oliver 
Boggs; John McKinley Boggs; Thomas Jefferson Boggs, Attorney; 
and Dr. James Coleman Boggs, my great-great-grandfather, who 
settled in Leon Co., Texas in 1845. 

Stephenie H. Tally-Frost 
3909 Live Oak 

Corpus Christi, Texas 78408 

Maryland House and Garden Pilgrimage— -The schedule for 1967 
is as follows: April 27: Warrenton Road Walking Tour (Baltimore 
Suburban) ; April 28: Carroll Co.; April 29: Anne Arundel Co.; 
April 30: St. Mary's County and Patuxent River Boat Trip; May 2: 
Washington Co.; May 3: My Lady's Manor (Baltimore County) ; 
May 4: Worthington Valley (Baltimore County); May 5: Kent Co.; 
May 6: Queen Anne's Co.; May 7: Talbot Co.; May 13 and May 
14: Chesapeake Bay Cruises and Walking Tour of Oxford, Md. 

Errata— in the "Notes and Queries," Dec, 1965, p. 367, George 
H. Callcott, not Collcott. In the Bibliographical Notes are several 
typographical errors, a list of which is on file with the editor. R.W. 

23, 1962; Section 4369, Title 39, United States Code) 1. Date of Filing: Sept. 27, 1966. 
2. Title of Publication: Maryland Historical Magazine. 3. Frequency or Issue: Quarterly. 
4. Location of Known Office of Publication: 201 West Monument St., Baltimore, Md. 
21201. 5. Location of the Headquarters or General Business Offices of the Publishers: 201 
West Monument St., Baltimore, Md. 21201. 6. Names and Addresses of Publisher, Editor, 
and Managing Editor. Publisher: Maryland Historical Society, 201 West Monument St., 
Baltimore, Md. 21201; Editor: Dr. Richard Walsh, Department of History, Georgetown 
University, Washington, D.C. 20007: Managing Editor: Harold R. Manakee, 201 West 
Monument St., Baltimore, Md. 21201. 7. Owner: Maryland Historical Society. No stock- 
non-profit organization. 8. Known Bondholders, Mortgagees, and Other Security Holders 
Owning or Holding 1 Percent or More of Total Amount of Bonds, Mortgages or Other 
Securities: None. 9. A. Total No. Copies Printed (Quarterly): 3,800. B. Paid Circulation 
(1.) Sales Through Dealers and Carriers, Street Vendors and Counter Sales: None; (2.) 
Mail Subscriptions (Memberships): 3,220. C. Total Paid Circulation: 3,220. D. Free 
Distribution (Schools and Libraries): 450. E. Total Distribution: 3,670. F. Office Use, 
Left-over, Unaccounted, Spoiled After Printing: 130. G. Total: 3,800. 

I certify that the statements made by me above are correct and complete. 

Maryland Historical Society 
Harold R. Manakee, Director 


Jackson T. Main is Professor of History at Stoney Brook College, 
Long Island, of the State University of New York. He is author 
of the prize-winning The Anti Federalists (1961) , a significant 
study of the people who ratified, but chiefly of those who opposed, 
the constitution. His recent Social Structure of Revolutionary Amer- 
ica (1965) has also received the accolades of the scholarly world. 
He has contributed many reviews and articles to the William and 
Mary Quarterly and other noteworthy periodicals. This article is 
the result of his continuing research in the Revolutionary Era. 

Raymond S. Sweeney is a National Defense Fellow in history 
at the University of North Carolina where he is studying for the 
Ph.D. This article began in Dr. George Hardy Callcott's seminar 
at the University o£ Maryland in the Spring o£ 1966. 

John W. Bailey is Assistant Professor of History at Allegany 
Community College, Cumberland, Maryland. He received the M.A. 
degree in history in 1961 from the University of Maryland. At 
present he is a candidate for the Ph.D. at the University of Nebraska 
in Western American History. He is working under the direction 
of Dr. James C. Olson. 

J. Reaney Kelly is author of Quakers in the Founding of Anne 
Arundel County, Maryland (1963) and of articles in the Maryland 
Historical Magazine, including one on "Tulip Hill" which appeared 
in the December 1965 issue. 

Peter P. Hill is Assistant Professor of History at the George 
Washington University from which he received the Ph.D. in 1966. 
A former reporter for the Concord Journal (Massachusetts), the 
Concord Colonial and the Washington Post, he also taught English 
and Social Studies on the preparatory school level before beginning 
his professorial career. 



Annual Report for 1966 

Farseeing and highly constructive vision prompted promi- 
nent citizens of Maryland in 1 844 to plan and create a Mary- 
land Historical Society at the corner of St. Paul and Saratoga 
Streets in a specially erected building. In it our Society and two 
others, kindred in nature, were housed. Soon the Maryland 
Historical Society was the sole occupant and owner. In time we 
outgrew the home but still continued to perform valuable 

December 15, 1916 was a highly important day in the history 
of our Maryland Historical Society. I will never forget my feel- 
ings of surprise and delight that evening when Mr. Douglas 
Thomas, President of the Merchants National Bank, confiden- 
tially told me, then secretary of the Society, that Mrs. H. Irvine 
Keyser would announce through him that she would buy the 
old Enoch Pratt home, repair it and add to it a wing contain- 
ing an art gallery and a library, all this at her expense, to 
provide a home for the Maryland Historical Society as a 
memorial to her late husband. 

This totally unexpected and generous gift was accepted joy- 
fully, for it enabled the Society to render services previously 
impossible and opened a new era of development for the 

In time the H. Irvine Keyser Memorial Building became 
seriously crowded; additional funds, more space and equip- 
ment became increasingly essential. Mr. William Thomas, an 
outstanding, history-minded lawyer of Baltimore, carefully 
surveyed the situation and became convinced that the Mary- 
land Historical Society could and would render greatly in- 
creased service if given the opportunity. His bequest in 1947, 
supplemented fourteen years later by that of his brother John, 
provided over |3,000,000 to supply the Society with larger 
quarters. Adjoining land was bought, the site for the structure 



was carefully selected, plans were prepared, and construction, 
soon to be completed, began in 1964. 

For years we have had to hold our meetings in cramped 
quarters, but the Jacob and Annita France Auditorium, named 
for those very generous donors to the Society, will give us a 
beautiful and comfortable meeting place with modern equip- 
ment. Thus the combined facilities of the Keyser Memorial 
Building, the Thomas and Hugg Memorial Building, and the 
Jacob and Annita France Auditorium will enable the Society to 
operate more effectively than ever before. We are confident that 
much needed financial support will follow, as another era of 
tremendous opportunity faces our Society. 

George L. Radcliffe, Chairman 


The past year has seen sound and steady, but not swift, prog- 
ress in the construction of the Thomas and Hugg Memorial 
Building which has brought nearer the day when the Society 
can expand into its large and and fine additional quarters and 
can, as we hope and believe it can do, materially increase the 
usefulness of its collections. It will probably be a matter of 
another two months before the builders will be ready to turn 
the new building over to us (though I hesitate to name any 
specific date), and there will then come the task of actually 
moving many of our possessions and a period of adjustment 
and readjustment of offices and work. This may well extend 
to late spring or early summer. 

In speaking of the new building I wish to acknowledge 
again the great indebtedness of the Society to Mr. Abbott L. 
Penniman, Jr., one of our Vice Presidents and the Chairman 
of our Building Committee, for his tireless and extraordinarily 
capable work in connection with the construction of that 
building. He has given it constant attention and has met and 
solved countless problems which arise in such an undertaking. 
In addition to that work, he has also taken upon his shoulders 
the problem of ascertaining what needs to be done to preserve 
and restore to first class condition the Society's present quar- 



ters. Not all of this work has to be done at once; fortunately, 
it can be spread over a period of years, since the anticipated 
cost is estimated at a very substantial amount. 

Returning to the Thomas and Hugg Memorial Building, I 
believe that as it nears completion, we can see in brick, mortar, 
stone and glass, even more clearly than in the plans, the sound- 
ness and handsomeness of the design of the architects and the 
skillfulness with which they have succeeded in blending the 
new with the old into a harmonious whole. Though the interior 
is still far from completion, enough has now taken definite 
form to enable us to appreciate the usefulness of the new 
building for the purposes of the Society for which it was de- 
signed as well as to enjoy its esthetic merits. 

A new project concerned with our expansion is just getting 
under way. This is under the aegis of the Women's Committee 
and is for the use and beautification of the land to the west 
of the new building. Here, as in much of the other work and 
undertakings of the Society, the problems of costs are an 
important factor. Planning is still in a very preliminary stage, 
and there is little that I can say at this time except to express 
my appreciation of the interest and enthusiasm of the ladies 
in the matter and of Mr. Bruce Baetjer's help. 

Mention of the above area leads naturally to what was actu- 
ally the last major transaction of the year which has elapsed 
since our last annual meeting. This was the acquisition of the 
land and the two-story building thereon at the southeast 
corner of Howard and Monument Streets. This property 
adjoins the property to the east of it which was already owned 
by the Society. The acquisition of this property, which was 
offered for sale in the course of the settlement of an estate, 
was deemed desirable for the Society at this time as an 
investment and also as a protection. Though there are no plans 
whatever in contemplation or in prospect for the possible 
future use of this property for the conduct of the Society's 
own activities, if occasion should ever arise for such use, the 
ownership of this property could be quite advantageous to 
the Society. The Society now owns all of the property along 
the south side of Monument Street between Park Avenue and 
Howard Street to a depth of roughly one-half of the block. 



Our frontage on Park Avenue is somewhat greater than on 
Howard Street, as we own the area now used as a parking 
lot south of the east-west alley behind the Society's buildings. 

This parking lot, too, should be mentioned in this report. 
We terminated the lease of it to the Baltimore and Annapolis 
Railroad Company, which had used it primarily for its buses. 
Thanks again to Mr. Penniman and also to Mr. W. Burton 
Guy, a member of this Society, and to his organization, a 
lease of this property to a new tenant has been entered into, 
the condition and appearance of the lot have been greatly 
improved, the buses are gone, the Society is receiving a larger 
rent, and a most convenient parking place is available (at 
usual rates) immediately adjacent to the Society's quarters. 

In both of these real estate matters and in other matters, 
too, we have had the able assistance of our counsel. 

Our physical plant is of vital importance to the Society, and 
so are our various collections and our loyal and able staff. 
One effect of our building operations has been to curtail 
seriously, but fortunately only temporarily, our exhibitions 
and the use of our library. As regards the latter, advantage has 
been taken of the opportunity which this period of limitation 
of use has given, to make great progress in the cataloging of 
our manuscripts, which is a very important work. This has 
been accomplished under the immediate direction of Mr. P. W. 
Filby with the enthusiastic support of the Library Committee 
and of our Director, Mr. Harold Manakee. Mr. Filby and his 
staff have done a splendid job. 

Concurrently with this work, and also under the supervision 
of Mr. Filby, but in Philadelphia rather than in our own prem- 
ises, a most important work of preservation has been completed. 
This is the de-acidifying, lamination and binding of the La- 
trobe Papers, which constitute some of our most valued treas- 
ures. Many of these papers were in deplorable condition where 
any handling of them, no matter how careful, was almost sure 
to make matters worse. This work of preservation was made 
possible by the very generous gift of a donor who prefers to 
remain anonymous, and we are most grateful to him. The work 
has been done in a manner which has, I think, won the admira- 
tion of all of us who have seen it. 



In spite of the difficulties arising from our being unable 
to hold meetings in our own quarters during the later stages 
of our building operations, we have thus far been able to 
maintain satisfactorily, I believe, our program of evening 
addresses. For this we are indebted both to our speakers and 
to our kind friends who have graciously allowed us to use their 
facilities for our meetings. We are deeply grateful to the 
Methodist Historical Society and the Lovely Lane Methodist 
Church and to Emmanuel Church for their cordial hospitality. 

Financial problems are always with us. I shall not attempt 
to cover ground which is much better covered by the report of 
our able and hard-working Treasurer. I regret that for our 
last fiscal year which ended September 30, 1966, we again 
incurred a deficit in our usual operations. We have also incurred 
a substantial loss so far in our publication fund through the 
publication of "A History of the University of Maryland." 
This has recently received favorable reviews in several scholarly 
quarterlies and there has been some improvement in sales in 
recent weeks. It is hoped that the deficit from this publication 
will continue to be reduced and will eventually disappear. 
Our publication funds have derived some profit from the sales 
of other publications, chiefly from My Maryland. 

I am glad to be able to report that effective as of January 
1, 1967, we have been able to make some increase in the com- 
pensation of the members of the staff of the Society, which I 
regard as very well merited. It has been a pleasure to me to 
be associated with this fine group of people, and I greatly 
appreciate the full cooperation which they have afforded me. 

The period of construction now nearing its end has been 
a period of transition. I am confident that with the opening 
of the new building, a new era will dawn for the Society in 
which it can go forward to greatly expanded activity and 
usefulness. It has been, in my estimation, impracticable to 
undertake any large scale effort to increase our membership 
or to seek substantial additions to our funds during this tran- 
sition period. After we do move into our new building, the 
attractions of membership in the Society may be more readily 
seen, and our financial needs can be more accurately measured 
and fairly definite objectives can be set. Without waiting until 



the move has been made, I think that it can safely be stated 
that we shall need substantial amounts of additional and 
unrestricted funds for the general work of the Society. May 
I bespeak your sympathetic interest and generosity whenever 
an appeal for such funds may come. I also wish to express my 
thanks to those who have given generously to the Society 
during these years when there has been no general campaign 
for funds. 

In concluding this report, I further wish to express to the 
members of the Society my deep appreciation of the honor 
which you have conferred upon me by electing me to the 
office of President, and to my fellow officers and other fellow 
members of the Council, and to the Committees of the Society, 
my pleasure in working with them, and my gratitude for all 
that they have done for the Society and for the cooperation 
which they have generously extended to me, and to repeat my 
thanks to every member of the staff of the Society. I also wish 
to express my special appreciation of the services of our 
Recording Secretary, Mr. Lewis, of our Treasurer, Mr. 
Hopkins, of the Secretary's Secretary and the Treasurer's Treas- 
urer, and the President's right hand, Miss Bokel, and of Miss 
Kriete, who has doubled and tripled her services as secretary 
for all of us who needed help. 

Finally, my congratulations and best wishes to our new 
President who is about to be elected! 

Frederick W. Brune, President 

My pleasure at the over-all progress of the Society in the 
past year is equalled by my concern for its future, for I believe 
that the imminent expansion into the Thomas and Hugg 
Memorial addition will challenge the Council, the committees, 
the membership and the staff to more intensive effort and 

For years the Society has been short of staff. It is short of 
staff now, and, notwithstanding the authorization by the 
Council of ten new positions upon occupation of the new 
building, it will remain short of staff. Despite some recent 



advances, the Society's low salaries and lack o£ fringe benefits 
do not attract applicants for positions. In addition, some of 
our possessions need attention. The new building will be 
equipped with modern lighting that will glaringly emphasize 
the need for the repair or restoration of many paintings, 
frames and pieces of furniture. Operating costs will increase 
because of the modern lighting and the conveniences of an 
elevator and air conditioning. Overdue renovation of the 
Keyser Memorial Building is planned, but it will be costly. 

Furthermore, many of the programs of the Society need 
revaluation. Rapid growth in recent years has outstripped the 
ability of the Society to assimilate the demands made upon it. 
Much of that growth has been in accordance with policies 
formulated years ago— good in their day, but now outmoded. 

Respectfully, but urgently, therefore, I suggest that in the 
immediate future, serious consideration be given, first, to in- 
creasing the income of the Society and, second, to a self study, 
under the guidance of a consultant, of its policies and opera- 

The year's accomplishments and events have been so ably 
presented by other contributors to this annual report that I 
can add little to them. Those members of the staff who are 
concerned with business and maintenance operations do not 
fall within the jurisdiction of a standing committee, but they 
should be recognized for their loyal and productive work. 
They include Miss Martha Bokel, Business Manager and 
Membership Secretary; Miss Alice Kriete, Administrative As- 
sistant; Mrs. Lucille Bulin, Bookkeeper; Mrs. Davie Harrell, 
Receptionist and Order Clerk; Miss Madeleine Wells, part- 
time Receptionist; Mrs. Enolliah Brown, Housekeeper, and 
Mr. Russell Sheppard, Porter. Miss Bokel 's decision to retire 
April 1, after 42 years of devoted service, is a blow that the 
Society will take in its stride only with great difficulty. 

Committee chairmen have pointed out in their reports the 
invaluable contributions made by volunteer workers. To the 
thanks of the chairmen I add my own. Mr. Abbott Penniman's 
attention to the construction of the Thomas and Hugg 
Memorial Building has been expert, meticulous and time con- 
suming. Messrs. Edward G. Howard and Lester S. Levy have 



contributed highly specialized knowledge and hours of work- 
even including vacation time— to assist in the reorganization 
of the Library. Mr. Richard Randall's faithful attendance and 
his knowledge have benefitted not only the Maritime Collec- 
tion, but also the Library. Mr. R. Hammond Gibson contin- 
ues to clean and repair ship models and to keep detailed records 
of the Maritime Collection. Beginning in mid-summer 
and continuing through the year Mrs. Robert H. McCauley, 
Jr. several times weekly has driven from Bethesda to volunteer 
her service to the reorganization of the Manuscripts Division. 
Without such contributions the work of the Society would be 
seriously impeded. 

Attendance at the Society totaled 9,981 during the year. 

Harold R. Manakee, Director 


Ten Light Street 
Baltimore, Maryland 21202 

The Board of Directors 
Maryland Historical Society 

We have examined the accompanying statement of assets, liabili- 
ties and fund balances of the Maryland Historical Society at 
September 30, 1966, and the related statements of current fund 
revenues and expenditures and changes in fund balances for the 
year then ended, all prepared on the modified cash basis as 
described in Note 1 to the financial statements. Our examination 
was made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, 
and accordingly included such tests of the accounting records and 
such other auditing procedures as we considered necessary in the 

In our opinion the statements mentioned above present fairly 
the assets, liabilities and fund balances of the Maryland Historical 
Society at September 30, 1966, current fund revenues and expen- 
ditures and the changes in fund balances for the year then ended, 
on a modified cash basis with that of the preceding year. 

The accompanying supplementary information has been sub- 
jected to the tests and other auditing procedures applied in the 



examination of the financial statements mentioned above and, 
in our opinion, is fairly stated in all respects material in relation 
to the financial statements taken as a whole. 

November 18, 1966 

Arthur Young & Company 

September 30, 1966 

Current fund: 

Operating fund 
Building fund 
State programs (restricted) 
Cash on hand 

$ 12,391 



Real estate 

Manuscripts and prints 
Paintings and statuary 
Furniture and fixtures 

Total Current Fund 

Special fund: 

Due from current fund 

Total Special Fund 

Restricted fund: 

Due from current fund 

Total Restricted Fund 

Endowment fund: 

Cash deposit— Baltimore Equitable Society 

Mortgage receivable 

Real estate, at cost 

Securities, at cost or donated value 

(market value $1,281,667) 
Due from current fund 

Total Endowment Fund 

Total All Funds 

* 43,762 











Liabilities and Fund Balances 

Current fund: 

Due to special fund $ 4354 

Due to endowment fund 49,384 

Due to restricted fund 5,000 

Payroll taxes withheld 1,934 
Receipts from state applicable to 

subsequent periods 5,863 

Reserve for Latrobe Papers repair fund 553 

Current fund balance 61,735 

Total Current Fund 129,023 
Special fund: 

Special fund balance $ 48,316 

Total Special Fund 48,316 

Restricted fund 

Restricted fund balance 15,257 
Total Restricted Fund 

Endowment fund 

Endowment fund balance 1,733,876 

Total Endowment Fund 1,733,876 
Total All Funds 

Year ended September 30, 1966 


Dues and contributions $ 32,827 

Investment income 59,446 

From the State of Maryland 31,900 

Other Income 1,190 



Salaries and wages 66,984 

Library 5,881 

Gallery and museum 371 

Publications 9,431 

Building maintenance 9,376 

State funds 26,682 

Other expenditures 9,442 


Excess of expenditures over revenues $ (2,804) 


Repairs were made to the large window on the circular 
stairway and to the one in the art gallery in the Keyser 


Memorial Building. In the construction of the Thomas and 
Hugg Memorial addition, it was found necessary to underpin 
the west wall of the Pratt Mansion and to clean and point 
up the brickwork. The cost of this work was paid from the 
Society's general funds. 

With the cooperation of Mr. A. L. Penniman, Jr., a budget 
estimate was obtained from the Consolidated Engineering 
Company as to the cost of thoroughly renovating the Keyser 
Memorial Building. 

Charles L. Marburg, Chairman 


Early in the year Mrs. George W. Williams was compelled 
to resign the chairmanship upon advice of her physician, but 
fortunately she remained a member of the committee. She was 
succeeded by Mr. Francis H. Jencks. 

In frequent meetings the group— with the addition of Mrs. 
W. Wallace Symington, Jr., Chairman of the Women's Com- 
mittee, and Messrs. Gilman Paul and Bryden Hyde, co-chair- 
men,— concerned itself mainly with planning for the decoration 
and furnishing of the Thomas and Hugg Memorial Building. 
The committee recommended, and the Council approved, the 
retaining of Mr. Norman Cousins of the Chambers Company 
as consultant. The group approved for use in the building 
samples of carpeting, wall covering, teak, serpentine marble, 
floor tile, chair fabrics, terrazzo and curtains. With a view 
toward economy, items already held by the Society were ex- 
amined for possible use. It was decided to use the large entrance 
lobby for orientation purposes, and the committee conferred 
with Mr. Richard Randall, Chairman of the Maritime 
Committee, as to the maritime items to be placed there. 

During the year the organization and personnel of the gal- 
lery staff remained unchanged. With most of the period rooms 
closed because of the construction work, the staff concerned 
itself with preparations for occupying the new addition. As- 
sisted by Mrs. Enolliah Brown, Housekeeper, Mrs. Virginia 
Swarm, Registrar, has brought order to the present crowded 
storage areas by dint of much assembling, inventorying and 
wrapping. Many items have been packed, ready for the move. 



Miss Eugenia Holland, Assistant Curator, has made a substantial 
beginning in compiling a checklist of Maryland clockmakers. 
Because of the use of the gallery for the cataloging of the man- 
uscripts collection, exhibits were sharply curtailed, but Mr. 
Eader of the library staff and Mrs. Swarm set up an exhibit 
in the Hochschild Kohn department store in connection with 
a city-wide observation of British-American trade relations. 
During the year 239 items were lent to other institutions or 
organizations, including an extensive loan to the annual meet- 
ing of the Garden Club of America. On the afternoon of 
Sunday, December 4, the Director and Miss Holland opened 
the Society for the Holly Tour of the Mount Vernon area 
sponsored by the First Presbyterian Church. Nearly 300 visi- 
tors attended. 

Miss Holland continued her liaison activities with groups 
whose interests are allied with those of the Society, and she 
represented the Society in Princess Anne, Maryland, during 
the 300th anniversary of the formation of Somerset County. 

Gifts to the Society totaling 571 items from 89 donors have 
been recorded in Maryland History Notes. Among the more 
outstanding were: a six-piece silver teaset made by S. Kirk 
1824-1830, from Miss Adelaide Lowe Jenkins; a bronze bust 
of Enoch Louis Lowe, Governor of Maryland, 1851-1854, 
signed "F- Volck, 1862," also from Miss Jenkins; oil portraits 
of William Pechin (1773-1849) and Mrs. William Pechin 
(Catherine Anthony) (ca. 1776-1829), each attributed to John 
Pechin ca. 1812, from Madame Marie Maurice Masson de 
Bellevalle; a miniature portrait of Mrs. Arthur Tilghman 
Jones (Anna Maria Chew Hollyday) (1796-1823) at the age 
of about four years, by Robert Field, signed and dated "R. F. 
1799," from Mrs. Richard H. Woodward; a painting, "Con- 
versation Piece," of the Duke of Windsor and Her Highness, 
the Duchess (Wallis Warfield) , done by Trafford P. Klots in 
Palm Beach, Florida, in 1960, from Mr. Klots; a mahogany 
lap desk with brass trim and several secret compartments from 
Mr. Layton Rogers Colburn of Delray Beach, Florida; three 
oak side chairs with original webbing, ca. 1730, from Mr. and 
Mrs. George Thomas of "Deep Falls," Chaptico, Maryland; a 
mid-19th century harp made by J. F. Browne & Co., London 



and New York, from Miss Elizabeth D. Steuart; a paste knee 
buckle of Charles Carroll of Carrollton from Mrs. J. Albert 
Key of St. Louis, Missouri; and a pair of Bristol decanters with 
12 matching sherry glasses from Mrs. B. Frank Newcomer. 

Francis H. Jencks, Chairman 

On June 1, 1966, for the first time in its 122 years, the 
Library closed its doors for an indefinite period to all but 
scholars faced with impending publication deadlines. The 
decision was taken reluctantly but in recognition that the 
printed materials would have to be inventoried and the manu- 
scripts fully catalogued before either could be used most ef- 
fectively. The problem resulted from the recent rapid growth 
of the collections, particularly manuscripts; and it could not 
have been solved if the Library had remained open, for the 
staff— like the staffs of the past— could not have performed 
these arduous tasks and served readers simultaneously. 

It is now clear that the closing, which regrettably inconven- 
ienced many of our members and other readers, has been a 
success. Almost all collections have now been treated, as de- 
scribed below; and those readers who have suffered from 
this cause will soon be gratified, the Committee believes, by 
the major improvements in Library service and in the avail- 
ability of materials that the closing has made possible. 


From January 1 to June 1, 1966, there were 1,200 readers— an 
average of ten a day. Holiday periods and Saturdays were most 
heavily patronized; genealogists outnumbered historical re- 
searchers by three to one. Of those who signed the register, 20 per 
cent were members. Nonmembers paid a daily fee of one dollar, 
and the resulting total of $260 was used to restore genealogical 
materials. Bona fide students of history were allowed free 
access at all times. Notwithstanding the closing to the general 
public, about 800 historians, students, and writers with publi- 
cation deadlines were assisted after June 1, and as far as is 
known, the closing did not impede any scholarly project. 
But telephone calls and correspondence trebled, causing extra 
burdens on the entire staff. 



The staff was both skilled and industrious, but more help 
was needed. In response to recommendations from the Com- 
mittee, the Council authorized an increase in staff and made 
money available for additional summer workers on the manu- 
scripts project. This has been the key to the solution of the 

During 1966 Miss Sandra M. Kamtman was employed to 
take charge of the manuscripts project. Following her marriage 
she was replaced by Mrs. Timothy Pedley, who had been 
working on a similar project at the Cambridge University 
Library. Mrs. Sidney Painter, after retiring from the Peabody 
Library, came to give her expert knowledge on the serials and 
periodicals collections and also to assist in the indexing of 
manuscripts. Miss Susan Towles assisted on the manuscripts 
cataloguing for almost eight months. Miss Kathleen Reinsfelder 
came as Secretary to the Librarian, replacing Mrs. Forrest 
Lord, who retired but who continued her assistance as a volun- 
teer. The generosity of a member of the Committee made it 
possible to engage a junior assistant, and the post has been held 
successively by Robert Resting, Philip Remare, and James 

The Library relies heavily on the generosity of volunteer 
workers. For almost a year Mrs. Robert H. McCauley, Jr., 
has journeyed from Bethesda to assist in the cataloguing of 
manuscripts. The Dielman Biographical File has been kept 
up by Miss Mary C. Hiss, assisted by Miss Nancy Ridout, Miss 
Eliza Funk, Miss Jessie Slee, Mrs. G. W. Cauthorn and Mrs. 
Charles W. Ayres, Sr. Miss Madeleine Wells helped with the 
mounting of clippings. Miss Selma Grether, docent, continued 
to maintain the subject files, assisted by Miss Louisa Gary and 
Mrs. B. F. Newcomer. 

Others giving generously of their time included Miss Helen 
Sellman, Mr. R. Hammond Gibson and Miss Anna D. Ward. 
Seniors from the College of Notre Dame assisted in library 
projects for much of the school year and since this probably 
will become a recurring source of assistance, special work will 
be planned for them. 

Miss Betty Adler continued her preparation of the cumula- 
tive index to the Magazine,, completing during the year work 



on volumes 30-41, inclusive. Additional editorial tasks con- 
nected with this project, such as filing cards and elucidating 
specific questions posed by Miss Adler, could not be under- 
taken by the Society's staff. A means of performing these tasks 
is being sought. 

The annual indexes to the Magazine were prepared by 
Mr. Frank F. White, Jr., and the index card entries for the 
Society's existing file were entered in the Magazine card index 
by Miss Wells. 

General Staff A ctivities 

The increase in staff has permitted the allotment of per- 
sonnel to the following specific tasks: 

(a) Manuscripts. The holdings are estimated to be about 
1,000,000. Hitherto the collections were inadequately housed, 
largely unprocessed, and had outgrown the locating system. 
After the library closed, all of them were moved to a more 
accessible area where an average of 12 assistants (including 
staff, volunteers and students of Goucher and other colleges) 
examined and reboxed the collections. 

Apart from a brief mention of the more important collec- 
tions in Hamer's Guide to Archives and Manuscripts in the 
United States, the Society's collections have been virtually un- 
known to scholars. Following discussions with staff members 
of the Library of Congress it was decided to catalogue the 
collections in accordance with rules applicable to the National 
Union Catalog of Manuscript Collections, which is printed 
annually and distributed throughout the world. Although not 
all our collections will qualify for NUCMC, most will be 
entered and data sheets for the remainder will be uniformly 
completed so that most questions can be answered quickly. 

During February and March, Miss Kamtman and the Li- 
brarian examined the manuscript systems of the Library of 
Congress, the New-York Historical Society, William and Mary 
College, Harvard University, Eleutherian Mills, the State Li- 
brary of Virginia, and the Virginia Historical Society. To 
staff members of these institutions, and particularly to Mr. 
John M. Jennings, Director, Virginia Historical Society, the 
Committee records its thanks, for from those visits evolved the 



new system, which is admirably simple and which is designed 
to encompass after-acquired materials, as well as those on 
hand, without alteration. 

By the end of the year, 1,500 of the 1,600 collections, or 
about 920,000 of the 1,000,000 documents, had been catalogued 
and data sheets sent to the Library of Congress. Now the task 
of indexing the findings on catalogue cards is beginning. The 
forms have been duplicated so that they may be filed by name 
of donor, by subject, in chronological sequence by decades, 
and by names of the principal people around whom each col- 
lection was formed. Finally, a printed handlist of all collections 
with a copious index will be available. 

Much of the material has been boxed in special Permalife 
boxes, and several thousand documents have been placed in 
deacidified folders, thus protecting them from deterioration. 

Following discussions with Mr. William Barrow, a world 
authority on paper, at his laboratory in Richmond, it was de- 
cided to cease silking documents and instead to laminate them 
for preservation purposes. 

Special funds for the restoration of manuscript collections 
were generously provided by the Maryland Chapter, Daughters 
of Founders and Patriots of America, and by the Society of 
Daughters of Colonial Wars in the State of Maryland. Since 
many thousands of papers urgently need restoration, these 
gifts were much appreciated. 

The Latrobe letterbooks, which were in a brittle condition, 
were laminated and bound by a firm working in close conjunc- 
tion with Mr. Barrow. Three microfilm copies were made, one 
of which is stored in a safe deposit box. The cost of this and 
further work has been generously borne by a member of the 

At the completion of the Thomas and Hugg building, most 
of the work will be finished, but it must be borne in mind that 
the manuscripts have been only catalogued. About one quarter, 
250,000, have been read and indexed; the remainder are still 
unread, and in many cases need arranging. There is still a 
pressing need for accurate and careful indexing of the entire 
collection, a task that will take years. 

Arrangements were made with the Protestant Episcopal 
Diocese of Maryland in 1966 whereby the Maryland Diocesan 



Library manuscripts will be deposited with the Society when 
it takes possession of the Thomas and Hugg Building. The 
collection has over 50,000 papers, many expertly indexed by 
Mr. F. Garner Ranney, Curator. The acquisition of this col- 
lection, with the benefit of Mr. Ranney's knowledge, is wel- 
comed. Requests for assistance should be addressed to Mr. 
Ranney at the Society. 

The papers of the Historical Society of Harford County, 
deposited with the Society are now being examined and re- 
furbished by Mr. Henry Hoffman, with funds provided by 
the Harford Society and Mr. J. G. D'Arcy Paul. Considerable 
progress lias been made. 

An article, Manuscripts in the Maryland Historical Society, 
Baltimore, written by Sandra M. Kamtman and the Librarian, 
appeared in Manuscripts, Volume XVIII, No. 3, Summer 1966. 

The Librarian attended the annual conference of the Manu- 
script society held in Boston in September 1966. The Manu- 
script Society will hold its 1 967 annual conference in Baltimore 
from September 14 to 17, using the Thomas and Hugg Memor- 
ial as its headquarters. Members attending will join the Society 
on its annual Bay Cruise on September 16. 

(b) Printed material. Books, periodicals, pamphlets, broad- 
sides, bound volumes of newspapers, sheet music and miscel- 
laneous printed items total about 90,000. The closing of the 
Library allowed the taking of an inventory through which it 
was determined that no major loss had occurred, but over 100 
books, missing for some years, were found misplaced on the 
shelves. The project showed also that as of the end of 1966 the 
Society had over 4,000 printed items still uncatalogued, some 
of which have been in that condition for a decade. The inven- 
tory was carried out most efficiently by Miss Rich, Miss Grether 
and Mrs. Lord. 

Cataloguing of current accessions naturally lessened and only 
740 volumes, of 609 titles, were processed in 1966, as against 
an average of 1,200 in previous recent years. Nevertheless, all 
new and important books were catalogued currently. 

The Society has a fine collection of sheet music, much of it 
given by Mr. Louis H. Dielman. The Librarian has made this 
a special project, and with the expert advice of a member 
of the Committee, Mr. Lester S. Levy, accessions have been 



examined and weeded. Of the 4,000 pieces examined, there was 
one outstanding find, listed elsewhere, and several rare pieces. 
Of these, 3,000 still have to be checked against the main col- 
lection, but all have been placed in special Permalife boxes. 
The collection is now immediately available to scholars. 

Much of Mrs. Painter's time was spent in the efficient re- 
organization of the serials and periodical collection. Broken 
out-of-state and several out-of-scope sets were weeded, and many 
useful sets were completed. Many runs were bound, in the 
belief that any periodical worth keeping should be bound. 
Over 250 volumes were sent to the bindery in 1966. 

(c) Graphics. Included in this category are maps (2,500), 
photographs (75,000) , prints (2,500) , framed pictures (300), 
genealogical family charts (1,500), architectural drawings 
(2,000), plats (1,000), slides (400), and ephemera (including 
menus, tickets, programs, cards, paper money, calendars, etc.) 
(70 boxes) . The entire collection has been capably reorganized 
and catalogued by Mr. Eader during the year. All items have 
been placed in suitable boxes or cabinets. 

During 1966, 250 photographic orders were filled, resulting 
in a total of $215, plus $575 in reproduction fees, a sum only 
slightly less than in 1965, when the Library was open through- 
out the year. These funds were devoted to Library purposes. 

An arrangement was made with the Winterthur Museum 
whereby our picture collection will be greatly augmented. Mr. 
John Hill of Winterthur has examined our collection and will 
photograph those items not already in our photograph collec- 
tion; a negative and a print of each item will be given to the 
Society and one will be deposited with Winterthur, but control 
will remain in the Society's hands. 

(d) Miscellaneous. Mr. Eader spent a week at the New York 
State Historical Association seminars in Cooperstown, New 
York, and reported in detail upon his return. He prepared a 
special exhibition for the Hochschild Kohn Department Store 
in October 1966 to commemorate British- American relations. 
During the year the Librarian spoke at historical societies and 
library meetings on 17 occasions. He also attended Biblio- 
graphical Society of America, Manuscript Society, Grolier Club, 
and American Library Association meetings and conventions. 


Miss Anna D. Ward has been working in the library and at 
home, compiling a list of all known sources of signers of the 
Oath of Allegiance. 

Sumner A. and Dudrea W. Parker Genealogical Contest 

The Parker Genealogical Contest continued to attract ex- 
cellent entries, and another five genealogical works were sub- 
mitted in 1966. The thoughtfulness of Mrs. Sumner A. Parker 
in making money available for prizes is much appreciated, and 
the genealogical collection has been considerably enriched 
by entries since the inauguration of the contest in 1946. 


During the year 592 "lots" of material were accessioned, as 
against 505 in 1965. The year's accessions have been reported in 
detail in Maryland History Notes. The following list, therefore, 
is but a brief resume of some of the outstanding ones: 


Acquired from various funds a representative collection of American 
bibliography and art reference works. 

The Anacreontic Song, London c. 1780, the first sheet music edition 
of the tune which later was used for The Star-Spangled Banner. Six 
copies only are known. This was discovered by Mr. Levy during his 
search through the Society's unsorted collections. 


John Henry's Survey of Worcester County, 1742-1754. (MS. No. 1111) 
(Purchase) . 

Orndorff Family Papers, given by Mrs. Mary Ridgely Ryan, in memory of her 
father, Captain James Ridgely Orndorff. (MS. No. G-5080) . 

Brune-Randall Papers, given by Mrs. H. R. Slack (MS. No. 1132). 

Kennedy-Boone-Klots Papers, given by Mr. Trafford P. Klots (MS. No. 

Ridgely Family Papers, given by Mr. D. Stewart Ridgely (MS. No. 1127). 
Levy lists of various Maryland Counties, 1776-1825. (Purchase) (MS. No. 


Many books and other materials from: Mrs. Frank R. Kent, Mr. Richard 
H. Randall, Sr., Mr. Curtis Carroll Davis, Mr. Robert G. Torrence, Mr. 
Archibald M. Hart, Mrs. G. H. Dieke, and Mr. Louis E. Shecter. Approxi- 
mately 600 Baltimore & Ohio Railroad prints and negatives (gift of the 
company through Mr. Robert M. Vogel, Smithsonian Institution) . 

Maritime Materials 

As in previous years, the regular attendance of Mr. Richard 



H. Randall, Sr., has been of great service. His knowledge of 
all things maritime is invaluable. 

Rationalization of the Collections 

For years the library stacks have contained piles of books 
which were duplicates or were out of scope. There were also 
many volumes of pamphlets which bore no relation to Mary- 
land or were clearly unnecessary for the Society's collection, 
e.g., The Flora and Fauna of New Guinea; A Soldier's Life in 
India. These and other books were checked against bibliogra- 
phies and dealers' catalogues, and over 5,000 have been con- 
signed to auction houses in New York. Duplicates of Maryland 
and peripheral state items were sold to local libraries or in lots 
to dealers. 

The money so far raised has been used in purchasing desi- 
derata or books which could not be bought from the annual 
budget, as well as for binding, for the purchase of much-needed 
map and file cases, and for special boxes for the proper housing 
of the sheet music and other collections. 

Library Committee 

Early in 1966 the Librarian presented the Committee with a 
comprehensive report which underlined the poor state of much 
of the collection and the need for vigorous action to restore it 
and to prepare for the move to the new building. The Com- 
mittee, composed of bookmen, most of whom are regular users 
of the Library, met whenever necessary. Throughout, the mem- 
bers have realized that the chief needs were new equipment 
and additional staff, and it is through their eEorts and those 
of the Director that much has been accomplished. 

The Librarian, Mr. P. William Filby, wishes to place on 
record his appreciation for the way in which the staff sur- 
mounted all difficulties in this crucial year. Without them 
nothing could have been achieved. He also records his gratitude 
to the Director and the Library Committee for their under- 
standing of the needs and for their work in achieving what 
seemed impossible a year ago. 

The Librarian 

The foregoing portion of this report is based on a draft 
submitted by the Librarian, and it therefore omits any direct 


reference to the quality and extent of his services to the 

At the close of 1966, the Librarian had been with the Society 
for about 14 months. During that short period, however, he 
has displayed extraordinary qualities of industry and imagina- 
tion, and has combined with them a talent for getting things 
done. The remarkable achievements of 1966 recorded herein 
are essentially his. 

Edward G. Howard, Acting Chairman 


Your Committee on Finance has the general responsibility 
of advising the Society in the management of its finances in- 
cluding the investment and reinvestment of funds given or 
left to the Society by members and friends to provide the facil- 
ities and income to carry on the Society's purpose of keeping 
alive the understanding and appreciation of the historical and 
cultural development of Maryland. In investing the Society's 
funds your Committee seeks to obtain the best current income 
which can be produced by prudent management. We also seek 
growth of both principal and income. The long term gradual 
rise in the Society's investment income which is based primar- 
ily on additions to endowment has been boosted by rising divi- 
dend payments on common stock holdings and in the last few 
years by good yields on new bond purchases. Our present 
policy is to invest approximately 40% of our funds in bonds 
and 60% in common stocks. 

Upon completion of the Thomas and Hugg Memorial 
Building in 1967 an estimated $1,300,000 will be available 
for the endowment fund provided under the wills of William 
S. Thomas and John L. Thomas. Our present estimates are 
that the $55,000 in additional income which this fund will 
provide will be barely sufficient to operate the new building 
and to carry on and finance the expanded program which 
the new building makes possible. 

In view of the prospective tightness of the Society's finances 
on completion of the Thomas and Hugg Building your Com- 
mittee strongly urges that every effort be made to increase the 



Society's income sufficiently to take care of its needs and 
opportunities. This calls for more members and more mem- 
bership income, additions to our endowment and the search- 
ing out of other new sources of income. 


1966 1965 1956 

Book Value of Endowments $1,733,876 $1,728,184 $482,789 

Net Income, Endowments, Etc 59,446 55,465 26,385 

Dues 26,217 26,089 17,072 

Contributions 6,610 4,550 3,050 

Robert G. Merrick, Chairman 


Early in the year upon the unanimous recommendation of 
the Committee the Society published A History of the Univer- 
sity of Maryland by George H. Callcott, Assistant Professor of 
History at the University. It has been well received by re- 
viewers. Later in the year the Committee formulated a policy 
relative to the continuation of the publication of the Archives 
of Maryland which the Council unanimously adopted. Several 
manuscripts were reviewed and one, "Quakerism on the East- 
ern Shore," by Dr. Kenneth L. Carroll, was recommended for 
publication as soon as possible. 

Charles A. Barker, Chairman 

Following are the membership statistics for 1966: 

January 1, 1966 



Contributing . . 


Husband and wife 


Sustaining . . 


Donor .... 


Life ... 


Patron .... 




New Members, 1966 Individual ... 167 

Contributing ... 15 

Sustaining .... 1 

Donor 1 



Members Lost, 1966 Deaths — Life . 1 

Other . . 65 

Resignations ... 107 

Lapsed for two years 91 


December 31, 1966 Net Total Members 3285 

Individual . . . 1795 

Contributing 310 

Husband and wife 1009 

Sustaining .... 56 

Donor 20 

Life 91 

Patron 4 


The net loss of 80 members is attributable, in part, at least, 
to the severe curtailment of the activities of the Society during 
the construction of the Thomas and Hugg Memorial Building. 
Your Committee is confident that a membership drive, planned 
to coincide with the opening of the new building, will bring 
favorable results. 

Charles P. Crane, Chairman 


Because of problems related to the construction of the 
Thomas and Hugg Memorial Building, the customary after- 
noon series of lectures on arts and crafts in Maryland was not 
held. Evening membership meetings, however, were held as 

January 17— Joint meeting with the Society for the Preserva- 
tion of Maryland Antiquities. Mr. Orlando Ridout IV, Presi- 



dent of the Maryland Historical Trust, spoke on "Preservation 
in Maryland." 

February 14— Annual meeting covering the election of officers 
and committee members. Reports on the past year's activities 
were made by chairmen of the committees concerned with the 
construction of the Thomas and Hugg Memorial Building. The 
rooms of the Society were opened for inspection and recent 
accessions were on display. Refreshments were served. 

March 21— Mr. C. Keating Bowie spoke on "Augustine 

May 23— In cooperation with the Committee for World 
Trade Week a film titled "The History of the Port of Balti- 
more" was shown. 

October 24— As guests of the Methodist Historical Society 
a meeting was held in the Sanctuary of the Lovely Lane Metho- 
dist Church, at which Mr. Lester M. Levy spoke on "American 
History as Reflected in Sheet Music." 

November 21— At the same location the Honorable George 
Henderson, former Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Alle- 
gany County, gave an illustrated address on "The Chesapeake 
and Ohio Canal." 

The Society records its gratitude to our hosts on the two 
last-named occasions. 

Howard Baetjer, II, Chairman 


During the year the War Records Division completed the 
publication of the 5-volume Maryland in World War II— 
Register of Service Personnel which lists name, rank, branch 
of service, serial number and community address for approxi- 
mately 237,000 veterans of the State. Sets of the volumes were 
distributed in accordance with directions received from, the 
Board of Public Works. The remaining copies will be stored 
at the Society and are for sale at f 20.00 a volume. 

By means of a formal resolution the Maryland Society was 



commended by the Vermont Historical Society for the scope 
and thoroughness of its War Records program. In an effort to 
institute a similar program, the Vermont Society and The 
Adjutant General of that state will submit the Maryland pro- 
ject as a model to the Vermont legislature. 

Following a general tidying-up of the division's specialized 
library, the project will end as of June 30, 1967. 

J. Rieman McIntosh, Chairman 


The Committee did not meet formally during the year but, 
in accordance with the directions of its Chairman, the Director 
held several conferences with school officials as to a possible 
widening of the Society's educational program. Upon com- 
pletion of the Thomas and Hugg Memorial Building guided 
tours of school groups will be resumed, slide-illustrated lectures 
to pupils on Maryland subjects will be given by appointment 
during school time, and, it is hoped, informal courses in Mary- 
land history will be offered to teachers. 

During the year the school text My Maryland was reprinted 
and additional titles in the series of Wheeler Leaflets on Mary- 
land History were planned. 

During the coming months the Education Committee will 
consider the advisability of sponsoring a state-wide meeting of 
local school superintendents, librarians, and historical group 
chairmen to determine methods of closer cooperation in educa- 
tional programs pertaining to state and local history. 

Thomas G. Pullen, Jr., Chairman 


The Society regrets that during the construction of the 
Thomas and Hugg Memorial Building and the necessary closing 
of the library and the art gallery, its hospitality to other groups 
had to be curtailed. During the year, nevertheless, the following 
groups met here on one or more occasions: Society for the 
Preservation of Maryland Antiquities; National Society of 



the Colonial Dames in the State of Maryland; Woman's East- 
ern Shore Society; Civil War Union Room Committee; Con- 
federate Room Committee of the United Daughters of the 
Confederacy; and the Society of the Ark and the Dove. 

The annual meeting of the Association of Historical Socie- 
ties in Maryland met September 24 at Brick Meeting House, 
Calvert, with the Historical Society of Cecil County as pleasant 
and efficient hosts. One hundred forty representatives of 21 
different organizations attended the morning meeting and 
made the afternoon tour of historic homes and sites. 

In accordance with a recommendatoin of the Director of the 
Society, who is also the State Chairman of the awards program 
of the American Association for State and Local History, the 
Association presented an Award of Merit to former Senator 
George L. Radcliffe, Chairman of the Council, "for inspired, 
devoted and productive service for more than half a century 
in all matters pertaining to Maryland history." 

When the auditorium and the smaller meeting room in the 
Thomas and Hugg Memorial Building became available, it 
is hoped that more groups with interests allied to those of the 
Society will meet here. 

Rosamond R. Beirne, Chairman 

The current chairman assumed office in February and during 
the year three members— Messrs. William E. Hill, Robert E. 
Michel and Frederick W. Wehr— were added to the committee 
to bring the total to fifteen. The chairman represented the com- 
mittee at all meetings of the Council of the Society except for 
a few occasions when he was out of town, and he has been at 
the Society about 30 hours per week to continue the compila- 
tion of his maritime library files. 

Though the committee met only once, at that session it 
outlined a program for the year relating mainly to the purchase 
of display cases, the nature of the collection and the method of 
its exhibition in its larger quarters after removal to the 
Thomas and Hugg Memorial Building. During the year a 
sizable loan was made to the Garden Club of America. Acquisi- 
tions have been acknowledged periodically in Maryland History 


At its June meeting the Council approved a motion that the 
Committee sponsor and receive the profit of the Annual Bay 
Cruise. Messrs. Steuart and Scarlett with the cooperation of 
the Steamboat Trade Association are endeavoring to secure 
a tug boat pilot house as a feature of the expanded exhibit. By 
the year's end sufficient display cases for the new maritime area 
had been delivered or were on order and additional ones will 
be made available if necessary. Acquisitions during the year 
totaled 13 "lots" o£ 46 items, including purchase of the reserve 
steering wheel and the engine-room end of the bridge tele- 
graph o£ the City of Norfolk, the last passenger steamer to 
leave the Chesapeake Bay. A noteworthy gift from Mrs. W. 
Guy Delahay of Baltimore was a power-boat racing trophy pre- 
sented by the Sunpapers in 1932 to Messrs. Ernie Chase and 
John Bramble. The trophy, cast in bronze, stands three feet 
high and was made by Jack Lambert, well known Baltimore 
sculptor. The base carries the inscription: "1634-1934 Year of 

Three committee members deserve special gratitude: First, 
Mr. Marion V. Brewington who, with Mrs. Brewington— for 
the second consecutive year— has given the Society $1,000 al- 
located to the maritime collection, and who also presented 1,000 
copies of his booklet Sailing Craft on the Chesapeake Bay to 
be sold for the benefit of the collection. Mr. Brewington has 
also given or deposited a number of other items. Second, Mr. 
R. Hammond Gibson, curator, who devotes many hours to the 
cleaning and repair of models and to arranging their display. 
Mr. Gibson has also made scale drawings of the layout of the 
new exhibits as well as kept detailed records of the collection. 
Finally, Mr. Graham Wood, who handles all matters relating 
to steamboats and who is the committee's most active member in 
procuring new acquisitions. 

Richard H. Randall, Chairman 


At the end of 1966 the Thomas and Hugg Memorial addition 
to the headquarters of the Society was about 78 percent com- 
plete. Bad weather and an extreme shortage of skilled labor 



has slowed the construction, but both materials and workman- 
ship are superior. With the building closed in for the winter, 
and with plastering and the installation of decorative marble 
well under way, the work should move more rapidly. 

A. L. Penniman, Jr., Chairman 


As the year began, interests of the Women's Committee 
centered on the new building. Two of its members, Mrs. 
Williams and Mrs. Symington, served on the Decorating Com- 
mittee of which Messrs. Hyde and Paul were co-chairman. 
Several members inspected materials and colors used in various 
new buildings in the city, and reported their findings to the 
Decorating Committee. Gifts totaling $220 were presented to 
the Committee by two of its members. 

Volunteers from the Committee will prepare a series of pam- 
phlets on costumes, portraits, furniture, china, and possessions 
of famous people held by the Society. Work on this is neces- 
sarily in abeyance while so many of the Society's possessions 
are in storage. However, Mrs. Earle has completed a pamphlet 
on costumes, since she has been weeding out costumes for 

Several activities of the Committee have necessarily been 
interrupted. Still being pursued, however, are the clipping of 
the Baltimore Sun by Miss Gary, the clipping of the Evening 
Sun by Mrs. Newcomer, and maintenance of the scrapbook by 
Mrs. Gibbs. 

The usual fall tea for new members was postponed until 
the occupation of the new building. 

Katherine S. Symington, Chairman 


A reminder of the services offered to historical authors by 
the Seminar in Maryland History was sent to the News-Letter 
of the American Historical Association, and the Journal of 
American History early in the year. This renewed notice elicited 
several inquiries; but no draft studies were submitted for 



Research in the Society's papers, except on an "emergency" 
basis, has had to be suspended during the construction of the 
Thomas and Hugg Memorial Building, and this necessity may 
help to explain why we have had no grist brought to our mill. 
But the existence of the Seminar has served to signify the 
welcome the Society offers to historical investigation, especially 
to research in its holdings. Such research should receive a fresh 
impulse from the reorganization and cataloguing of our hold- 
ings by Mr. Filby, which is at last well advanced toward ac- 
complishment thanks to the advantage he has taken of the shut- 
down incident to their impending transfer. Meanwhile, the 
Director of the Seminar is working with the Chairman of the 
Publications Committee and Mr. Manakee on proposals for 
closer cooperation between all the Committees that represent 
the interest of the Society in research, writing, and publication. 

One step in that direction already taken has been to consti- 
tute the Editor of the Magazine a member of the seminar ex 
officio. This has added Dr. Richard Walsh to our regular panel. 

The Seminar has been further strengthened by the appoint- 
ment of Professor Jack P. Greene, Professor of Early American 
History in the Johns Hopkins University, as a member to 
succeed Dr. F. Wilson Smith. 

Kent Roberts Greenfield, Chairman 


Since 1898 



From America's outstanding 
sources . . . in wide open 
stock selection. 

Our workroom offers com- 
plete restoration service . . . 
cabinetwork, refinishing and 

11 and 13 W. Mulberry St. 
Baltimore, Md. 21201 
LExington 9-3345 

(2% Atnmratt of Armn 

3fmrit?0 f 

To register your arms. Matriculations and new grants of arms are now 
possible, for the first time in the United States. All arms we register 
will be protected by an instrumentality of the government. All arms 
registered will eventually appear in the American Armory— a. copy- 
righted authority on AMERICAN HERALDRY. 

VE 7-1776 

The American College of Arms, 


O L D S T A M jP S 


Old letters written before 1845 and 1870 often bear valuable 
stamps. Consult us before disposing of any old letters. 



Bowen & King Building 
405 North Charles Street Baltimore, Md. 21201 



714 E. PRATT ST. Sr BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21202 ~ir TEL: AREA CODE -301 727-7070 WASHINGTON TEL: 393-5676 



Provides library reference service to about 4,000 patrons yearly — 
scholars, writers, genealogists, students, collectors, artists. Mail and 
telephone inquiries double the figure. 

Conducts Jecture tours of its museum for an annual average of 
about 8,000 school students. Another 10,000 casual visitors, in- 
cluding tourists, view the collections, in addition to many museum 
students, collectors, hobbyists and authorities in given fields who 
utilize stored items for study. 

Advises and assists 23 local historical societies in the counties, the 
work culminating in an Annual Conference of the Association of 
Maryland Historical Societies. 

Maintains liaison with such allied groups as patriotic societies. 

Acts as consultant to civic and governmental groups relative to 
publications and commemorative occasions. 

Publishes the Maryland Historical Magazine, and Maryland History 
Notes. Circulation over 3,500 each. 

Publishes scholarly works and low-cost school books and leaflets on 
Maryland history — over 50 different titles. 

Holds meetings, open to the public, for lectures by authorities in 
various fields, including prominent government officials. 

Stages special exhibits with timely themes. 

For the Government of the State at cost 

Edits, publishes and distributes the Archives of Maryland. 70th 
volume in preparation. 

Conducts a program of marking historic sites with roadside signs. 

Indexes important, original papers relating to Maryland history. 

Preserves and publishes data pertaining to Maryland's contribution 
to World War II.